PRIVATE BUSINESS
	 — 
	HARMONDSWORTH AND CAMPSFIELD HOUSE IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRES

Paul Goggins: Mr. Speaker, we had the Adjournment debate yesterday, and in it we covered much of the territory in the hon. Gentleman's question. However, I shall start with the facts. This year's budget for the Police Service of Northern Ireland is £100 million more than it was two years ago. As for the CSR discussions, I assure him that we want to maintain the same police numbers—that is, 7,500 officers—that we have at the moment. For obvious reasons, that is rather more than one would find in the average police service in the rest of the UK. What matters too is how those resources are deployed. That is very important, and the Chief Constable's commitment to neighbourhood policing is very welcome.
	The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) touches on another important issue that no doubt will be touched on later in our proceedings today. We cannot go on spending on investigations into the past without there being a knock-on effect on both present and future services. The CSR considerations that are going on at the moment will be important in that respect, but I am committed to making sure that we continue to provide the necessary funding for the PSNI, and I am determined that that will happen.

Laurence Robertson: I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on their appointments and thank them very much for their kindness this week following the terrible flooding in my constituency. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for having to leave shortly after this question to attend to those problems.
	Given that the security situation has improved so much, is it not rather unfortunate that over the past 10 years the level of policing has dropped from 8,500 to 7,500, and also that the full-time reservist force has dropped from 3,000 to fewer than 700 and the part-time reservist force from 1,300 to fewer than 900? Although we hope that the security situation continues to improve, are not those figures of a little concern to the Minister?

Paul Goggins: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, may I express our sympathies to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents for the difficulties that they face?
	At 7,500, the PSNI has greater strength than any other police service in the United Kingdom. Significantly, confidence levels in the PSNI show an encouraging story: 75 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland express full confidence in the police service that they receive. We should all take encouragement from that.

Kate Hoey: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. He will be aware that the people of Northern Ireland are pleased that the question of the future of the Maze is now in the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but will he make sure that every piece of information relating to the stadium is put into the public domain so that people, such as Northern Ireland football supporters, do not have to go to freedom of information legislation to obtain information about various aspects of the process that seem to have been kept very secret? Will he assure the Minister for Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland that every bit of information will be put into the public domain?

Shaun Woodward: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, this is now a matter for the Executive—it will be their final decision—but I remind him that, when direct rule Ministers looked at the issue, it was the subject of enormous consultation and that the decision was endorsed by all three major sporting bodies—those for soccer, rugby and Gaelic football? However, these are now matters for the Executive.
	In respect of the hon. Gentleman's observations about what some have described as a terrorist shrine, there is no question of its being a terrorist shrine and, frankly, to do so, as I think that he knows, denigrates the work done by the Maze consultation panel. It came up with proposals and a way forward on all this, and it would be best to remember the words of the Deputy First Minister, who said yesterday:
	"I am not arguing for any kind of shrine...If we want a conflict transformation centre, then it has to concentrate on how we resolve conflict."

Mark Harper: Of the 3,268 murders related to the security situation that are being investigated by the historical inquiry team, has he made any assessment of how many of those murders are likely to lead to the establishment of a separate public inquiry?

Bob Neill: I apologise for not have heard all the answer, Mr. Speaker.
	The Secretary of State has been helpful in what he has said, but will he assist me on whether he in the Department or someone in the devolved Administration decides which inquiry will take place and determines the extent of the investigation and the budgetary parameters? Who decides whether it is appropriate to hold an inquiry and on what terms?

Shaun Woodward: The conduct of most of the inquiries that are taking place is already set out, and they are already proceeding along their courses. A number of inquiries are under way. I am not quite sure which inquiry the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I am happy to discuss that with him or to pursue it by letter. Of course, inquiry matters are for me to set out; but once under way, they are matters for the chairman or the judge involved.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State says that justice must take its course, but does he accept that many of the innocent victims in Northern Ireland see no justice; what they see is hundreds of millions of pounds being spent for political purposes by the Government and others to pursue a vendetta against the security forces and those who work to defeat terrorism. I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, but will he do something to redress the balance in favour of the victims and against the terrorists and those who would seek to rewrite history?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to deal not just with the supply of, but the demand for, illegal drugs in prisons. I was at Hydebank Wood prison earlier this week, and I saw the work of an organisation called Opportunity Youth, which works to support, help and counsel young people there. Its results are very good, in terms of lowering recidivism rates and ensuring a worthwhile future for those young people. When the director brings his recommendations to me, I expect him to include measures that will give people support and help in dealing with their addiction problems.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must give the hon. Gentleman a chance to be heard, otherwise it is unfair.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will know that it is not just in Northern Ireland that drugs coming into prisons is a problem; recently in Scotland, a solicitor was sent to jail for bringing drugs into prison. Will he ensure that there is adequate funding in Northern Ireland, not only for searches—we must make sure that they are much more sophisticated—but to ensure that the consequences for people convicted of bringing drugs into prisons are advertised, so that people know what they are up against when they do it?

Gordon Brown: Before I list my engagements, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of the four servicemen killed in Iraq over the past week—the three senior aircraftsmen from the RAF killed last Thursday, Chris Dunsmore of 504 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force, Peter McFerran of 1 Squadron Royal Air Force, and Matthew Caulwell of 1 Squadron Royal Air Force, and at the weekend Lance Corporal Timothy Flowers from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. They died doing important work in the service of their country and our country, and we owe them and others who have lost their lives a deep debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Gordon Brown: I have studied the case that the Opposition have been making. Last week they quoted the National Association of Probation Officers, which says that it is not opposed to the end of custody licences. It has no objection in principle to them at all. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about tagging and home detention curfew, the people who were let out were let out four and a half months early under home detention curfew. The people who were let out in the past few weeks were let out on 6 July, whereas otherwise they would have been let out on 24 July. There was only 18 days' difference. The major change that we made as a Government over the past few weeks is to build more prison places, which the Opposition could not afford because they do not have the money to do it.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the families of Lance Corporal Timothy Flowers and Senior Aircraftsmen Matthew Caulwell, Christopher Dunsmore and Peter McFerran, all of whom were killed in Iraq. Their deaths are a reminder of the daily sacrifices that our young men and women are making on our behalf, and we honour their memory.
	I join the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in praising the emergency services and local councils for the vital work that they are doing in dealing with the floods. The sympathy of the whole House will go out to those who have lost loved ones, those who have been flooded out or evacuated, and those who have had property damaged or lost.
	Looking to the future and how we minimise the risk of future flooding, at least five times in the past decade the House has been told that co-ordination between the Environment Agency and local councils needs to improve. I welcome the review that the Prime Minister has set up. Can he confirm that it will look into co-ordination to ensure that this time it really is delivered, and will he ensure that we do everything possible to protect key infrastructure in the future?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because his question allows me to explain that we have been talking to the insurance companies. They are in a position to act quickly, and we are urging them to do so. On those people who are uninsured, part of the reason why we are funding local authorities with the additional £20 million is to enable them to help people who are in particular difficulties. In addition, there are crisis grants and community care grants, and I know that money has already been paid out in Yorkshire and Humberside. We will do what we can to help people to get their insurance payments as quickly as possible, and to help the uninsured. Again, I hope that all parties want to make sure that people insure for the future and, at the same time, that insurance companies pay up quickly.

Gordon Brown: This is a very serious matter because it affects people's confidence in television stations. Those people who are running competitions and telephone lines rely on the general public having confidence in what they are doing. I will certainly have the talks that my hon. Friend suggests, but it is a matter for those authorities to sort out, and they should do it quickly.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because that is exactly what we have to do. If we are dealing with extreme weather conditions, as we are, and if we are dealing with the situation that we found in Yorkshire and Humberside, and particularly in Gloucester, where a month's rain fell within an hour, we have to look at whether the precautions we have taken in the past are satisfactory, whether infrastructure is sited in the right place, and whether drainage arrangements made in the 19th and 20th centuries are suitable for 21st century conditions. I assure him that the review has sufficiently wide terms of reference—I could read them out, but I shall pass them on to him—for all these issues to be looked at. But again, all parties will have to agree that further expenditure on infrastructure will be necessary, and that it will be a public expenditure requirement on the country.

Menzies Campbell: The Prime Minister was responsible for the establishment of the Stern review, which he will recall pointed out the severe economic consequences of climate change. Is it not clear from the events of the past few weeks that we cannot afford not to take the necessary steps or indeed, not to spend the necessary money, in order to mitigate the effects of climate change?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have looked at the issue from time to time. I realise that he is passing judgment on a former Chancellor of the Exchequer when he makes his comments about what has happened to the taxation of bingo. I assure him that the current Chancellor will continue to consider those matters and that I am also happy to meet him to discuss them.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is very much part of the spending review that we are undertaking so that we can do more for children in the establishments that she mentioned and recognise their needs. I believe that all parties accept that we undervalued what we needed to do the past. The review that is taking place will make for better policy for the future. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about those issues so that we can agree on a proper way forward.

David Cameron: Why does the Prime Minister not wake up and read this quotation from his trade Minister? He said, "This is a con to call this a treaty; it's not. It's exactly the same: it's a constitution." That is the man whom the Prime Minister put in the House of Lords as his trade Minister. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to restore trust in a Government that he has been part of for 10 years; he says that he wants to involve people in the decisions affecting their lives; and he says that he wants the state to be the servant not the master. Yet on the key test of whether to honour the commitment that he personally gave to hold a referendum, he has failed. Why is he afraid to trust the people and hold that referendum?

Emily Thornberry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Royal Mail to enter into meaningful discussions with the Communication Workers Union and thus ensure that the jobs, and the good pay and conditions of Royal Mail employees, such as those at Mount Pleasant sorting office in my constituency, are protected?

Gordon Brown: We will meet our responsibilities in Iraq. They are responsibilities in relation to the United Nations and to the new, democratic Iraqi Government. We have reduced the number of troops from 44,000 to 5,500, and in three provinces we have moved from a position of being in a combat role to an overwatch role. We will have to make a decision about moving to an overwatch role in a fourth province. I do not think that we would be doing the Iraqi Government or our commitments to the United Nations any service by setting an artificial timetable now.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that we must support the effort in Afghanistan. It is the front line against the Taliban, and this is where we would like to see greater burden sharing by all our NATO and other allies. It is also where our Army and our defence forces are doing an excellent job, as they are in Iraq. Where the Army and the defence forces ask for extra and new equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is being provided. We have already spent £0.75 billion on updating the equipment that is available to the forces, and, in Afghanistan in particular, I was able to announce new helicopters for our forces for this year and next year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, when it comes to the provision of equipment to deal with these emergencies, we have been forthcoming in providing the resources necessary.

Mary Creagh: Holly Davenport from Wakefield was just five years old when she suffered burns to 50 per cent. of her body after falling into a scalding hot bath. Each year, 600 people suffer the same terrible fate as Holly, three quarters of whom are children under five. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and the hot water burns like fire coalition, so that we can impress upon him the need to change the law to enable the installation of thermostatic mixing valves on the baths in the 3 million new homes that we are going to build over the next 13 years, to protect the most vulnerable in our society?

Chris Bryant: Is it fair that 1.8 million children in this country grow up in poverty because they live in a household where nobody works? That is the single biggest issue in my constituency and the Rhondda. Is it not time that we did far more to ensure that every child gets an opportunity in life and that we got more people off benefits and into work so that we break the vicious circle whereby poverty cascades down through the generations?

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement. On 29 and 30 June, the professionalism, vigilance and courage of our police and our security and emergency services thwarted a conspiracy to murder and maim British citizens. Britain—led by London and Glasgow —stood firm in the face of threats. Our calmness and steadfastness as a nation sent a powerful message across the world that we will not yield to terrorism, or ever be intimidated by it.
	Those events were the 15th attempted terrorist plot on British soil since 2001. As previously set out, the police and security services are currently having to contend with around 30 known plots, and monitor more than 200 groupings or networks and about 2,000 individuals. I think that the whole House will agree that our country—and all countries—has to confront a generation-long challenge to defeat al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist violence.
	In recognition of that continuing long-term threat, we have created, among other things, a new national security committee to oversee the new office for security and counter-terrorism. Following the first meetings of the national security committee, I want to report on changes that we now recommend.
	First, let me confirm to the House that in future we will publish a national security strategy, and that the first will be published and presented in the autumn to Parliament for debate and decision in this House. At the time of the spending review, we will announce a single security budget for our country. In line with the Butler report, we will separate the position of chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee from policy adviser to the Government. Thus, the sole responsibilities of the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee will be to provide Ministers with assessments that have been formulated independently of the political process and to improve across Government the effectiveness of intelligence analysis.
	Today, I am also publishing the Intelligence and Security Committee report on rendition and the Government are consulting on how in future the ISC should be appointed and should report to Parliament—where possible, with hearings in public, a strengthened capacity for investigations, reports that are subject to more parliamentary debate and greater transparency over appointments to the committee.
	To strengthen the counter-terrorist capability of the police and security services, we have, since 11 September, doubled our overall investment to more than £2 billion a year. Dedicated anti-terrorist resources have also doubled. Even in advance of the spending review settlement for future years, the Security Service will, by next year, be twice the size it was in 2001.
	The protection and resilience of our major infrastructure and crowded places requires continuous vigilance. I can confirm that over 900 shopping centres, sports stadiums and venues where people congregate have been assessed by counter-terrorism security advisers, over 10,000 premises have been given updated security advice, and the police will continue high-visibility patrols.
	The counter-terrorism Bill will also include a new power allowing the Secretary of State to ensure additional protection for key utility sites. We have asked Lord West to oversee, over this summer, a further overview of how best we protect crowded places and our buildings and national infrastructure, from roads, railways and tunnels to bridges, water systems and utilities.
	Since 1997, the Government have given the police new resources and Parliament has provided new legal powers to arrest and try terrorists. Thanks to the hard work, dedication and commitment of the men and women in the police, security and intelligence services and the prosecuting authorities, this year alone, in nine cases, a total of 30 individuals have been convicted. The forthcoming counter-terrorism Bill will propose additional penalties for terrorists charged with other criminal offences.
	Our first line of defence against terrorism is overseas at other countries' ports and airports where people embark on journeys to our country and from where embassies issue visas. To protect us in routes and places where there is the greatest threat of harm, I believe that we now need to accelerate our plans, completing the move from old and ineffective paper-based systems to real-time monitoring, which will allow us to act immediately and in a co-ordinated way across immigration, police, and intelligence.
	The way forward is electronic screening of all passengers as they check in and out of the country at ports and airports, so that terrorist suspects can be identified and stopped before they board planes, trains and boats to the United Kingdom. After a review of counter-terrorism screening, and as part of the overall spending settlement for security to be set out in the autumn, the Home Secretary will enhance the existing e-borders programme to incorporate all passenger information to help to track and intercept terrorists and criminals as well as, of course, illegal immigrants.
	While new biometric visas are already in place for immigrants from high-risk countries, I can confirm that within nine months—from March next year—we will extend biometric visas to all visa applicants. From 2009, we will introduce a new, enhanced system of electronic exit control, linking the checking of passports to checking against the warnings index.
	The second line of defence is at our borders, where biometrics—not just fingerprints but iris recognition—are already in use. To strengthen the powers and surveillance capability of our border guards and security officers, we will now integrate the vital work of the Border and Immigration Agency, Customs and UKvisas overseas and at the main points of entry to the UK, and we will establish a unified border force.
	I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to report back by October on the stages ahead in implementation and whether there is a case for going further while ensuring value for money, but as a result of our announcement today, the first change that people will see is that, starting from next month when arriving in Britain, they will be met at the border—either sea port or airport—by a highly visible, uniformed presence, as over the next period we move, for the first time, to one single primary checkpoint for both passport control and customs.
	But this, our second line of defence, has also to be complemented by a third line of defence—ID security within our own borders. While for UK citizens the first biometric ID cards will start during 2009, from the end of 2008 any foreign nationals coming to the UK for more than six months will be required to have a biometric ID. Such an identity scheme will help to prevent people already in the country from using multiple identities for terrorist, criminal or other purposes.
	In the identification of potential terrorist suspects, there should also be maximum co-operation internationally, with maximum possible use made of alerts and watch lists. While Lord West's review has found no systematic failings in our procedures for checking potential suspects, it has highlighted the importance of enhancing existing co-operation to share more information between police and immigration services and internationally across countries: within the European Union, to enable British law enforcement authorities to access immigration information on existing European Union databases; bilaterally with other member states, mutually to exchange information; and joining up criminal records databases throughout the EU, so that our authorities can quickly identify individuals who are charged with crimes, no matter where in Europe they are convicted. At a cost of £5 million, we will link the UK watch list to the Interpol database of lost and stolen documents.
	In addition to the nine foreign nationals recently deported under immigration powers on grounds of national security, a further 21 foreign nationals are currently subject to deportation proceedings on national security grounds. On the same grounds, we are preventing 124 individuals from coming to our country and refusing to admit another 52 for glorifying terrorism or other unacceptable behaviour. Overall, 4,000 foreign prisoners are likely to be deported from our country this year. We have agreed repatriation arrangements with Jordan, Libya, Lebanon and Algeria, and we will now press ahead to sign more agreements.
	Liberty is the first and founding value of our country, and security is the first duty of Government. The British way is that every measure we take to enhance security is complemented by additional protections against any arbitrary treatment and in defence of the liberties of the individual. We want to consult widely, and we seek—and look forward to obtaining—an all-party consensus on how we treat intercept evidence and on new provisions for pre-charge detention and post-charge questioning. The independent and cross-party review into the use of intercept as evidence in court will be led by Sir John Chilcot, and its members will include the Privy Councillors Lord Archer of Sandwell, Lord Hurd and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
	While it is already a criminal offence to seek training for terrorism overseas or in this country, we will consult on tightening bail conditions, and in particular on restriction of travel, in any cases where people are suspected of complicity in terrorism. We have in place a regime that allows pre-charge detention for up to 28 days. There is general agreement that the circumstances in which the police might need to go beyond even 14 days will be rare, and that will be subject to special procedures of both judicial oversight and parliamentary accountability. I detect that there is also a growing weight of opinion—including from Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation—that there might be some circumstances in which detention beyond 28 days is necessary, such as if the police have to intervene early to avert an attack, if huge quantities of material evidence need to be analysed, or if assistance from other countries is necessary.
	The 2005 case cited in previous debates on this issue involved investigation of some 60 mobile phones, 268 computers, and 920 DVDs. However, the airline investigation last August involved 200 mobile phones, 400 computers, 8,000 CDs, DVDs and other discs containing 6,000 gigabytes of data, almost 70 premises searches, and inquiries across three continents. Another case involved 3,000 statements, the examination of 6,000 documents, more than 8,000 exhibits and inquiries across nine countries. During the recent period—I must make this clear to Members, in the light of a radio debate this morning—six people had to be held for 27 or 28 days.
	While one of our proposals, which enjoys broad support, to allow post-charge questioning for the explicit purpose of securing evidence in a terrorism trial will reduce the risk that we will need to go beyond 28 days, the Home Affairs Committee concluded that that step will not entirely eliminate the risk. It is right to explore whether a consensus can be built on the most measured way to deal with the remaining risk. I hope that Members will agree that we should not return to the previous proposal rejected by the House, but I also hope that they will agree that there must be a maximum limit—and that that should be set by Parliament.
	We today put forward four options for consultation over the coming months. One proposal that we cite in the consultation document from Liberty, to which we are grateful for engaging constructively in the debate, is that if this risk materialises, we should declare an emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and allow for a period beyond the 28-day limit, for up to a further 30 days, although that would require the declaration of a state of emergency. We are also proposing for consultation—this would not require a state of emergency—an extension of the current limit for up to 28 days more or a lesser period but only if, in addition to the requirement that a judge must approve every seven-day extension, the case is notified to Parliament and subject to a timely report to it of all circumstances, and with the option of a later parliamentary debate.
	This therefore means that any extension would be subject not only to a specific case being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, subject every seven days, up to the agreed limit, to the approval of a High Court judge, and subject to the regular report of the independent reviewer, with an annual debate in Parliament but, in each and every instance, to a specific parliamentary notification procedure, to a further statement to Parliament on the individual case, and to a review on the specific case by the independent reviewer, with the provision for this House to scrutinise and debate the report and all the circumstances.
	More important even than consensus here in the House is the consensus that we seek in all communities across the country. Since the attacks of 7 July 2005, communities in Britain and across the world have come together in a common front against terrorism and against the propaganda that fuels it. This requires not just the security measures we are outlining today, but that we work with all communities— and, indeed, all countries—through debate, discussion, dialogue and education as we tackle at root the evils that risk driving people, particularly vulnerable young people, into the hands of violent extremists. Here, schools, colleges, universities, civil society, faith groups—indeed, every institution in our country—have a part to play.
	Last week, President Sarkozy of France and I agreed to propose the formation of a joint working group with Germany and other countries to share our experiences and develop ways to expose and defeat terrorism. We will report later this year on this work, but we can make a start today. Over the next three years, we will provide an additional £70 million for local authorities and community groups to improve the capacity of local communities in our country to resist violent extremism. This will include developing leadership programmes for young people, strengthening the capacity of women's groups, and local projects to build citizenship. There are perhaps as many as 1,000 madrassahs in Britain, educating more than 50,000 to 100,000 young people in after-school classes. In Bradford, an agreement was reached to include citizenship education in their curriculum, and we will now offer to work with other communities on similar programmes.
	We will also support a new skills qualification in citizenship and community cohesion for faith leaders. We will sponsor English-speaking imams and propose interfaith bodies for every community in the country to build greater understanding. We will update guidance to universities before the autumn on how they can do more to protect the safety and security of vulnerable young people in particular. I can also confirm funding for a BBC Arabic channel, and an editorially independent Farsi TV channel that will broadcast to the people of Iran. Following further discussion on these and other issues, the Government will report back to Parliament on further measures that can isolate extremists who preach and practise terrorism.
	Our priority as a Government is a Britain strong in security, robust in our resolve, resilient in response, so that as a nation we both defeat terrorism and isolate violent extremism, wherever we confront it and whatever its support. I hope that in doing so, an all-party consensus that will extend into every community of this country is possible, so that together we can create a stronger, safer and more cohesive United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I very much agree with what he said in praising the police, the security services and the public for what they did to combat those terrorist attacks. This is an area, of course, where we can and will work together. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the threat we face from terrorism today is of a different order from the threats we faced in the past? It requires tough, consistent and rigorous action at every level: intelligence and surveillance, tackling extremism, effective policing—including at our borders—and taking all the public with us. It is not just about passing new laws.
	On intercept evidence, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has accepted our proposal for a Privy Council committee. Will he pledge to legislate immediately if the committee can find a way to lift the ban on the use of this vital evidence in court? We welcome the single security budget, but can he confirm whether spending for special branch, which carries out much of the vital surveillance work done around the country, is included in that budget, because that urgently needs to expand?
	When the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he took the decision to freeze the Home Office budget. Now that that Department has been split in two and he has become Prime Minister, will he revisit that decision?
	One of our major concerns on ID cards is that costs are spiralling and the project's effectiveness is being widely questioned. Does the Prime Minister agree that the money could be better spent to bolster security and public safety elsewhere?
	I am delighted that the Prime Minister has finally adopted our policy of a border police force, about which I have been asking him since he became Prime Minister. The immigration Minister has described that policy as damaging, disruptive and distracting, and the Prime Minister and others said that all the way through the election campaign. I am pleased that the Prime Minister now agrees with us and that questions from this Dispatch Box result in action from the Government.
	The commission that I set up under Lord Stevens includes the former chief inspector of constabulary and the current head of the British Transport police. Their work is well under way. In order to prepare the policy quickly, will the Prime Minister consider turning the commission into a Government commission, with Opposition involvement, so that we may implement the policy properly and ensure that it is a proper border police force?
	On tackling extremism, the Prime Minister has said little about controls on terror suspects travelling abroad. Can he tell us today whether he is considering new laws? Does he agree with me that we should be using intelligence, surveillance and co-ordination to ensure that everything possible is done to break terror networks between this country, Pakistan and the middle east?
	On Hizb ut-Tahrir, I ask him again why there is still no ban. It is not only banned in Sweden and Germany, but in Egypt and Pakistan. The fact is that two years ago the then Prime Minister did not say that he would look into banning that group, that he would review it or that he would consider it: he said that he would do it. Why cannot the Prime Minister make the same pledge today?
	Another promise made two years ago was to deport those using websites to incite hatred and extremism. Will the Prime Minister confirm that since then only one person has been deported under those specific provisions?
	On the issue of winning hearts and minds, the Prime Minister said much with which I agree, and we both agree that not enough is done today to integrate new arrivals into our country. We welcome what he has said, but will some of the extra money be used to reverse the cuts in funding English language teaching, which is so vital for the proper integration of new arrivals?
	Turning to the issue of further legislation, will the Prime Minister confirm that seven people who have been given control orders have absconded? May I welcome the decision finally to take up our proposal of allowing the questioning of suspects after they have been charged? Is not that the most important way of ensuring that the police can get on with their job without introducing something that could, if we were not very careful, start to look like a form of internment?
	That brings me to the issue of 28 days. We will look at the Prime Minister's consultation papers very carefully. I have to say that we have seen the point before about the volume of evidence that needs to be gathered. What specifically in the paper today amounts to new evidence? In particular, what evidence does he have that was not available in December, because it was then that the then Home Secretary, Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor agreed that fresh evidence was needed before any further change could be justified?
	Rather than passing a new law, will the Prime Minister look carefully at our proposal—and Liberty's—to use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which gives the Government power to detain people for an additional 30 days in time of national emergency. That would make a total of 58 days, two more than the Prime Minister has talked about, without the need to introduce a new, repressive law. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the problem is the need to declare a state of emergency, but if there was a multiple attack on our country and those powers were needed because of the pressures on the police, it would indeed be a state of emergency. Should not this House ask that Ministers prove that all existing laws are being used before they reach for new legislation?
	Will the Prime Minister recognise that all the actions necessary—better use of intelligence, stronger policing, cracking down on extremists or passing the necessary laws—may come to nothing unless he is prepared to take a tough and hard-headed look at the Human Rights Act 1998? It is not just me saying that: the previous Prime Minister said that it needed reform and the previous Lord Chancellor said that there are problems with it. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the Act is frustrating our fight against terrorism? Will he work with me to draw up a proper Bill of Rights that protects our liberty and our security? Vitally, do the Government understand that what is needed to defeat terrorism is the hard-nosed defence of liberty, and we must avoid any approach that lapses into ineffective authoritarianism?
	Finally, will the Prime Minister welcome with me the fact that with a border police, intercept evidence, questions after charge and a national security council, my party is playing a key role in setting the agenda in making our country safe?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support for the individual policies that we have put forward. The support that he has indicated for the work of the emergency, police and security services is appreciated across the House. I know that his support for the bravery in the face of violence of the people involved in the incidents in June was much appreciated at the time.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have to do more on hearts and minds, and to integrate people who have come to our country. We need to look at what is happening in some communities to see how we can bind people closer together. I agree that if we could reach a conclusion on the intercept inquiry, we should legislate as quickly as possible. I am glad that there is now all-party agreement on the issue of post-charge questioning.
	The border force will be a unified border force that combines the work of the Border and Immigration Agency, Customs and UKvisas at all the main points of entry. It will be a single, uniformed presence and a single checkpoint for passengers. There will be new borders officers, with immigration, Customs and police powers to investigate and detain people suspected of immigration, customs or criminal offences, all reporting to the head of the Border and Immigration Agency. As people come into a port or airport, they will see one single, uniformed presence.
	The right hon. Gentleman's other proposals will be investigated in the Cabinet Secretary's review, but what we propose today can be implemented very quickly and people will soon see that uniformed presence at ports. If it is not exactly the same as the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, work will be done to consider other measures he wishes to propose. I believe that it is important that we move ahead now with the unified border force that I propose, and the details are made clear in the documents.
	On the issue of 28 days, Parliament is at its best when we discover common ground. It is common ground that there may be circumstances in which the police are justified in asking to go beyond 28 days. Over the course of the last few years, whatever the debates on 90 days or on this allegation or that, the Government and the Official Opposition have come to the view that there may be circumstances in which more than 28 days is necessary. I hope that the Liberal party and the other parties will say that they also agree with that case. Therefore, in the rare circumstances in which the police will ask to go beyond 28 days, the question will be what we should do.
	The Leader of the Opposition asked if there was new evidence that we could bring to bear since the publication of previous discussions. He agrees that we are dealing with a unique set of circumstances. International terrorists wish to maim or murder indiscriminately as many people as possible. In some cases, they are suicide bombers who have no fear for their own safety, but simply wish to inflict the maximum damage. They also seek to achieve a propaganda effect.
	The new evidence is that in six cases in recent times the police have had to go to 27 or 28 days. The new evidence contained in the document before the House is simply the number of exhibits and items for investigation and the number of countries that have to be involved in an investigation before charges can be properly laid. The ricin case involved 26 countries. One ricin-related operation involved 800 passports and 2,500 forged documents. In some of the cases, thousands of documents are involved that are eventually put before the court. That is why the police have said that it is their view that they need more than 28 days.
	I accept that we are talking about rare and unusual circumstances, and that it is not a power that we would wish to use other than in the rarest of circumstances. However, if we agree that we will go beyond 28 days in certain circumstances, by what mechanism can we justify to ourselves that the situation is rare, and how can we ensure that there is proper judicial oversight and parliamentary accountability? Those are the questions that we must ask.
	I have looked at the proposal from Liberty to which the shadow Home Secretary has given some support. It suggests that a state of emergency would be declared, under the civil contingencies legislation—but do Opposition politicians believe that the declaration of a state of emergency in the circumstances that we have been talking about would not send out a message about how we deal with things in this country that is exactly the opposite of the message that we want to send out?
	However, I do accept that there should be a special parliamentary procedure if we go beyond 28 days. Therefore, I ask the Opposition to consider in detail—and obviously there can be cross-party talks on these matters—what we propose as an alternative. We are talking about rare circumstances, and in some cases the parliamentary power that we propose would not be used in any one year. Therefore, would it not be better to ask the Home Secretary to make a parliamentary notification about what has happened and prepare a report that would come to Parliament? In each case, moreover, the independent reviewer would be asked to prepare a report for Parliament as a whole and not just for the Home Secretary. Parliament would then be in a position to debate the matter in full, if it chose to do so.
	It seems to me that what the Opposition parties and Liberty have suggested may be a way forward is better dealt with by the notification procedure, by the requirement on the Home Secretary to give a report, by the requirement that, if it is thought necessary, the House will have a debate on the matter, and by the requirement that the independent reviewer prepare a report in each and every circumstance.
	I hope that we can have a full debate over the summer months on this and the two other proposals that have been made, in addition to the one from Liberty. I am as anxious as other people in this House that we as a nation can move forward with a united agreement on this matter. Such a consensus would serve this House well. I believe that we can find a solution to this problem if we have a debate and dialogue about it that allows people to listen to all sides of the argument.
	The Leader of the Opposition asked about two other things. On Hizb-ut-Tahir— [Interruption.] In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to have corresponded by letter with Hizb-ut-Tahir, when he thanked it. However, what I say to him is that we must look at the evidence in every single case. We must be aware that when we proscribe an organisation, that should not be overturned on appeal. It is therefore necessary that we look in detail at all the evidence, and that is what I said to him that I would do. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he wished to provide me with any new evidence, and he is certainly welcome to do so over the next period of time.
	As to whether a Bill of Rights is the answer to the problems of deportation, we accept that, when it is difficult to deport an individual from this country, control orders are not just the second best way to deal with the problem, but the third best too. The Government have always made it clear that that is not our preferred route, but the Leader of the Opposition has to look very carefully at the constitutional position that he is taking on this matter. On "The Westminster Hour" last year, his shadow Attorney-General was asked whether a British Bill of Rights
	"would be drawn up to make it easier to deport suspected terrorists to countries which might torture them, would it?"
	The answer was:
	"No, I don't think it would...It would be quite wrong to suggest it would completely transform the situation."
	In the spirit of debate and dialogue, I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to give people the impression that if he accepts the European convention on human rights, he can find an easy way round the problem of deportation by simply adopting a British Bill of Rights. Let us debate the matter in such a way that we understand the difficulties and work through them, rather than giving people the impression that a solution can be found simply by announcing a new piece of legislation that we know might not have the intended effect.
	Otherwise, I feel that there is scope for consensus in other areas. I hope that, over the summer and autumn months, there will be discussions between the parties, led by the Home Secretary, about how we can work together on all the major issues to defeat what everyone agrees is the great issue of our generation. We must ensure that terrorist violence will not flourish, and that it will never intimidate this country.

Menzies Campbell: The Prime Minister was right to begin with a tribute to those who had a hand in thwarting the terrorist efforts of 29 and 30 June. He might also have mentioned the members of the public who behaved with conspicuous and gallantry, especially at Glasgow airport. I hope that there may some way to recognise their bravery formally, in a way to which we are accustomed.
	The Prime Minister's statement contained a great deal of detail, and we shall obviously consider it very carefully indeed. We have heard some of what has been said today before, but some of it is undoubtedly new. One thing that should be welcomed unequivocally is the rearrangement of responsibilities with regard to the Joint Intelligence Committee. If the JIC had been dealt with previously in the way that has now been set out, perhaps the misuse of intelligence in September 2002 would not have occurred.
	The Government have acknowledged the case for post-charge questioning and for telephone intercept evidence, and that is plainly something that we welcome. Those are the sort of proposals that offer the best approach to terrorism, as they are practical measures that would assist successful prosecution, rather than complex measures designed to circumvent the principles of the criminal justice system.
	In due course, we shall be asked to make judgments about how best to defeat terrorism in all its guises. The Prime Minister has asked for consensus, as he is entitled to, but I have to tell him that for many of us, consensus cannot be achieved at the expense of principle. The essential test for any proposed new power must always be whether it is necessary, not whether it is desirable or convenient.
	Of course the public have a right to security, but they also have a right to security against the power of the state. We know that it is in the nature of the police to ask for more powers—for the best of motives but often for the worst of reasons. It is in the nature of Government to grant such powers, and it should be in the nature of Parliament to resist them.
	Key questions have to be asked. What has changed in the past 18 months that merits asking Members of Parliament to change their minds about detention without charge? Which investigations in that period have been hampered by the absence of a 90-day limit, or of a limit greater than 28 days? Where is the conclusive evidence that an extension to the 28-day period is required, and what assessment has been made of the risk of fanning extremism with a detention policy that will act as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism, just as internment did for the IRA? Why does Britain require greater powers of detention than other comparable democracies, including Australia?
	The Prime Minister dealt in his statement with the question of emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act, and he supplemented his position in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. It would be extraordinary if one single terrorist made it necessary to declare a state of emergency for the whole country. To that extent, I agree with the scepticism expressed by the Prime Minister, but it would be a most curious constitutional development if the alternative was that the matter should be brought before Parliament. I suppose that this is the high court of Parliament, but the suggestion that reports should be made to Parliament, followed by later parliamentary debate, seems to stand the normal provisions of our constitution—and the separation of powers—very much on their head.
	Let me make it clear that we will fulfil our responsibilities, as I have no doubt will every other Member of this House, but it is worth pointing out that there are other things that the Government might have done. For example, why are there no measures to make it easier to charge people with a lower threshold offence at an earlier stage in investigations, when a prime facie case for a charge can be established? Finally, why is there no reference in the statement to the possibility of a more extensive use of plea bargaining, so that those on the periphery of conspiracies may be used as credible witnesses against those who are the principals in terrorist activity?
	There is a balance to be struck— [ Interruption. ] I heard a Labour Member say, "Oh dear!" But he is talking about the rights and privileges of all the people whom he represents here, and we can be pretty certain that the first time one of his constituents finds himself or herself the subject of some of these provisions, he will be here to make the case that something should be done to alleviate the consequences. When we make judgments of this kind we make judgments that affect the very fabric of the society we live in. That is why those judgments have to be based on principle and not expediency.

Gordon Brown: I admire the passion with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts his case for the defence of civil liberties in this country; it is what marks out our constitution, and has done for hundreds of years. Protection against arbitrary acts by Government, or any vested interest, must be central to the business of the House in making sure that such things do not happen in this country. I agree with him on the issue of principle. The question we have to deal with, however, relates to circumstances in which, in the last few months, six investigations led to 27 or 28 days. I can put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman figures that show the degree and scale of the evidence, the intercontinental nature, and the multiple passports, multiple identities and multiple addresses used by terrorist suspects or potential terrorists. The scale and complexity of the investigations that the police now have to conduct in relation to the specific issue of terrorism dwarf what came before. As the Leader of the Opposition—and also, I believe, the right hon. and learned Gentleman—recognises, we are in a very different situation from that of even 10 years ago in relation to terrorism.
	The question is: can we both ensure the security of the citizens of this country and protect the civil liberties of the individuals who live in this country? I believe that we can. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has interpreted our proposal for consultation as a threat to the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament. I do not believe that it is. I am suggesting that, as has been recognised by a number of people, there are circumstances in which it may be right to go beyond 28 days—unusual, rare and only in the instance of terrorism—and the question is how we can find a mechanism for dealing with those circumstances. One suggested mechanism is the declaration of a state of emergency and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, people question whether that is the right message to send out. However, if the Home Secretary were to notify Parliament that a case was going beyond 28 days, if at the same time the independent reviewer, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has agreed should play a role in reviewing all cases of between 14 and 28 days, was brought to bear so that they could look at the individual case, and if the option was left—after the report of the independent reviewer—that there could be a debate in Parliament on the issue, that is not a threat to the judiciary; it is parliamentary accountability working at its best. I hope he will understand that what I am trying to do in the proposal is to uphold the principle of independent judicial oversight, but saying at the same time that where issues of public interest are raised it is right that in certain circumstances they be debated here in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I hope that he will agree on reflection that this is a way forward.
	I agree that not only should we support the emergency services, the police and the security services, but that we should recognise their bravery, professionalism, vigilance and dedication to duty. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said today and I said yesterday, a way must be found in our honours system of both recognising and celebrating the work they do.
	I hope there will be agreement between the parties on the other matters we have discussed, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will use the summer and autumn period, when I invite him— [ Laughter ]—not to the usual talks that I have suggested, but to specific talks. As a protection, the Home Secretary will lead the talks this time. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party to talk about the issues over the summer months to see whether, where I find that the independent reviewer, the Home Affairs Committee, the organisation Liberty and, today, the leader of the Conservative party, all recognise that there may be a case for going beyond 28 days in certain instances, there can be a way forward on which we can find agreement in the House. I hope we will work towards that agreement.

Douglas Hogg: May I put this to the Prime Minister? I am not persuaded as yet of the need for an extension of pre-charge detention. If the Prime Minister wants to reach agreement across the House, why does not he establish a Committee of senior parliamentarians to take evidence on the matter? That Committee will report back to the House, and the House will then be in a position to take an informed view when it comes to vote.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that, in the spirit of what he says, he will have an open mind during the debate that we will have over the next few months. I agree with him that we should rule out the original proposal that did not command support in the House. I am also pretty clear that we should rule out the idea of an indefinite period of detention, and it should be made very clear that any maximum limit will be set by the House through legislation. I also believe that the evidence that we have, and the growing views of the Home Affairs Committee, the independent reviewer, and now, I believe, the Conservative party, that there may be circumstances in which we go beyond 28 days, should be reflected in an attempt to the find a consensus on whether a further number of days are necessary and in which circumstances that should be permitted.

Ian Paisley: Can the Prime Minister tell us anything about the relationships that he has had in negotiations with the southern Government? The only part of the United Kingdom that has a land border is, of course, Northern Ireland, with the Irish Republic. What will be the reaction now when we were all informed this morning from Northern Ireland that Operation Banner is no more? The Army has separated all its connections to security, which is now in the hands of the police.
	Can I have a strong assurance from the Prime Minister that the people of Northern Ireland, especially now as there is apparently government there, will be informed of what is taking place? I am not passing judgment on what he said. I come from a land that has been scourged with terrorism, and the baptism of terrorism is a terrible thing. My party is the largest Unionist party in the House from Northern Ireland and the largest party representing people in Northern Ireland, and we feel that every step should be taken that will hinder terrorism and give the people the peace that they need.

Gordon Brown: I gave the figures in my statement for the number of people whom we were trying to refuse entry into this country on the grounds that we know of their previous offences, and the number of people whom we are trying to deport from our country on the grounds that they have either perpetrated a terrorist offence or have been found guilty of other offences, and have been in prison, and should therefore be deported.
	I told the House that the number of people being deported, which was only about 1,500 two or three years ago, had risen to more than 2,000 last year. We believe that we are on track, so that 4,000 foreign nationals who have served a sentence in British prisons will be deported from our country this year. We are stepping up to the mark to ensure that these numbers both remain on track and are achieved. We now look at such cases months before the sentence has finished. In future, we will look at those cases a year before the sentence is completed, so that we are in the best possible position to deport people. That is the information that I can give the right hon. Gentleman on the specifics.
	As for international collaboration to deal with the problem of terrorists who are trying to get into our country illegally, that is precisely why I said in response to the First Minister of Northern Ireland that we need a proper exchange of data. I hope that, despite people's views on the EU, we can agree that that is a necessary means by which Governments must collaborate to avoid terrorism in the future.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the views that my hon. Friend expresses, because they are very much part of the debate. The scale of the investigations—for example the airline plot that I mentioned—is of a substantially and qualitatively different nature compared with some of the previous investigations. We are dealing with large amounts of data and, in some cases, with multiple passports, addresses and bank accounts. In some cases, the police do not know the identity of the person they have arrested for some time, because that person is operating under the cover of so many passports, identities, addresses and bank accounts. That issue is increasingly relevant in investigations. If we agree that we are in a qualitatively different position in terms of the threat from al-Qaeda-related activities, we have to consider the security measures that are necessary.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will also bear in mind the fact that—because the debate has been so long lasting—we have taken into account all the issues that have been raised previously. So if we were to move beyond 28 days, that would be subject to a case being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, to the approval of a High Court judge every seven days, to a regular report by the independent reviewer, and to a debate in Parliament on that. If we went beyond 28 days in any instance, Parliament would have to be notified and a statement would have to be made to Parliament. There would be a review of the specific case by the independent reviewer in a timely fashion and provision for the House to scrutinise and debate a report on the circumstances surrounding the case.
	I believe that we are combining the need for enhanced security and the protection of the lives of individuals with a recognition that there should be no arbitrariness in the way in which we treat individuals. Therefore we need not only enhanced judicial oversight, but proper parliamentary accountability. I hope that over the next few weeks and months my hon. Friend will look at the specific provisions, which I believe meet all the points that were eloquently made in the debate previously. I hope that she will bear it in mind that the proposal for 90 days has been dropped and that no one on this side of the House is proposing an indefinite period of detention.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend raises very important points, but it is in the interests of this country for more countries to be prepared to sign repatriation agreements with us. Over the next few months, I hope that we will be able to report to the House—there will be chances to debate this—that countries that hitherto have not been prepared to sign these agreements will do so. I think that that is for the benefit of us and those countries, in the long run, so I will not wholly go down the road that he suggests. I will say, however, that when we sign these agreements, we will report to the House so that the House can debate them.

James Paice: Does not the six-month threshold for the requirement on foreign nationals to have biometric ID leave a large loophole for would-be terrorists, who might seek to come to the country for a shorter period? Obviously, there is a serious issue of cost, and we cannot get away from that, but apart from cost, is there any reason why that threshold should allow a period as long as six months?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. She has done a very valuable job and has distinguished herself in taking up the work of that Committee, which has resulted in today's report; we have also had very good reports from it in the past. The reason why I favour a reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee is not to lose the uniqueness of what she describes, which is the ability of parliamentarians to talk to the security services about matters that it would clearly not be in the interests of the country to report widely. There is a second reason why the Committee should take the form that we suggest: it ought to be able to tell the country, through its work, about the important efforts made, and energies used, by the security services in the interests of our whole country. That is the part of the work of Select Committees that other Committees can undertake, and we must find the means by which the Intelligence and Security Committee can do that, in the interests of the security services and parliamentary accountability. I applaud the vital work that is being done, and I know that the security services appreciate it from discussions with them of some of the big challenges that they face, but we ought also to think about a public role, which I think will enhance the security services and the reputation of Parliament.

Gordon Brown: We are looking at that, and if the hon. Gentleman has particular expertise that he wishes to bring to bear on these matters, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for immigration will be very happy to talk to him about it. We must benefit from all the new technology that is available, but I appeal to the hon. Gentleman as someone who I know has thought a lot about the issues: we must recognise that a combination of e-borders, border control and some form identity management will be necessary for the future.

Des Browne: I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Defence has agreed with Her Majesty's Treasury a comprehensive spending review settlement for the next three years. The total departmental expenditure limit for defence over the CSR period will be £34 billion in 2008-09, £35.3 billion in 2009-10 and £36.9 billion in 2010-11. That is an additional £7.7 billion for defence by 2011, and a 1.5 per cent. average annual real terms increase against our CSR baseline, excluding the costs of operations that are met from the reserves and the time-limited defence modernisation fund. The Treasury will, of course, continue to fund from the reserves the additional cost of operations over and above the defence budget, having already provided some £6.6 billion from the reserves to support the front line since 2001.
	The settlement continues the longest period of sustained real growth in planned defence spending since the 1980s; that is evidence of the Government's commitment to defence and to the men and women who serve with the utmost bravery in our armed forces.
	The result of Labour's consistent funding for defence is that the defence budget will be significantly higher in real terms than the budget that we inherited in 1997—on average, a billion pounds more for defence every year, for 10 years. Compare this with the last five years of the Tory Government, when the defence budget was being cut by around £500 million a year.
	Our priority remains success on current operations. This settlement gives the MOD the financial certainty required to continue delivering that success. Over the past year I have been able to announce to the House important enhancements in protected vehicles, in helicopters and in surveillance. The settlement will enable us to do more in all these areas and others. It also allows for additional investment in the support that our service personnel deserve, building on recent improvements in pay, in the new tax-free operational bonus, in medical care for our wounded personnel and in accommodation.
	At the same time as ensuring success on current operations, and support for our people, this settlement enables us to invest in the capabilities that we will need for the future. I am pleased to be able to confirm today that we will place orders for two 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers to provide our front-line forces with the modern, world-class capabilities that they will need over the coming decades. These will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. They are expected to enter service in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
	This delivers on the Government's promise in the 1998 strategic defence review. The carriers represent a step change in our capability, enabling us to deliver increased strategic effect and influence around the world at a time and place of our choosing. They will be a key component of the improved expeditionary capabilities that we need to confront the diverse range of threats in today's security environment. They are evidence of our commitment to ensuring that our armed forces are modern, versatile and equipped for the future.
	In parallel, we will continue to work closely with France. Our co-operation has already yielded real benefits. We have shared the costs of developing the common baseline design to which we are committing today and we have capitalised on our huge collective technical and military experience. Our industries are exploring further opportunities for mutual benefit, including joint procurements of equipment for the carriers, and shared support arrangements. We look forward to making a joint announcement on further co-operation in the next few months.
	The carrier programme will sustain and create some 10,000 jobs across the UK, but we have always been clear that the carriers cannot be built without change in the maritime sector. As we set out in the defence industrial strategy, we need further improvements in efficiency to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. We need to ensure that the UK maritime industry is the right size and shape, so that it is sustainable in the longer term, so I am pleased that VT Group and BAE Systems intend to form a joint venture in naval shipbuilding and support.
	The creation of such a joint venture will enable the Royal Navy to work with industry to deliver the infrastructure that the Navy will need to support the fleet in the future while retaining all three of our existing naval bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane. This will be good news for the three communities and the service, civilian and contractor personnel employed at the bases. None the less, some reductions in the 17,600 personnel currently employed will be necessary and will be taken forward in consultation with trade unions in the usual way. We aim to rationalise infrastructure and spare capacity, streamline processes and build on partnering and other commercial arrangements. For example, today we are also announcing a £1 billion partnering arrangement with Rolls-Royce for the in-service support of the nuclear steam raising plant that powers the Royal Navy's submarines over the next decade.
	I am determined to ensure that more of our money is spent where it is really needed, reducing overheads to put more into the front line and into supporting our people. To enhance the spending power that this settlement gives us, we will make savings against the Department's overheads, including a 5 per cent. year-on-year saving in our administrative overhead over the next three years and a 25 per cent. reduction in our head office. These are additional to the £2.8 billion efficiencies delivered over the spending review 2004 period.
	A priority through the CSR period will be the continued investment in improving accommodation for our people and their families. We expect to spend some £550 million on this over the three-year period, including plans to upgrade over 18,000 barrack-type bed spaces. This builds upon the achievements of recent years in providing upgrades to our service families' homes and our plans to spend £5 billion over the next 10 years on upgrading and maintaining accommodation. We also intend to explore with the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government how best we can support the wishes of many servicemen and women to own their own homes.
	Full details of the CSR settlement for defence will be announced in the autumn, alongside the outcome for all Government Departments. Today, however, I am providing a summary for the Library of the House.
	Our armed forces are admired and respected world wide. I am conscious that with operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are currently asking our armed forces to do a lot. In return we must ensure that the Government do all they can to support them and their families. This significant additional investment shows that the Government are determined to do just that, and to ensure that in the years ahead they maintain their well earned and much deserved reputation for being the best armed forces in the world.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior sight of it.
	There has been widespread support on both sides of the House for both the carrier programme and the joint strike fighter, and I am pleased that we finally have the decision that we have been promised since February 2004. Indeed, the carriers have been in planning and design for twice the length of the second world war.
	Although it is welcome, let us not forget that the decision has come at a high price for the Navy. Since 1997 the Royal Navy has faced significant cuts in force levels completely at odds with the Government's strategic defence review, which called for 32 surface combatants. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Minister with responsibility for security that
	"we need 30 destroyers and frigates for what the government wants us to do"?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee today that we will see no further reductions in the surface fleet from its current inadequate numbers?
	If we are to have the new carriers, they will need adequate protection. The Government initially assessed the need for eight of the new Type 45 destroyers. Will the Secretary of State guarantee today that all eight will be procured? If we are to have the carriers, they will need to carry the appropriate aircraft. Can he tell us how many F35s it is currently intended to have on each of the carriers, and how many helicopters will complement that number? I presume that the Government know what they want to have on their carriers.
	It is disappointing that the carriers will enter service at least two years later than expected. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that any co-operation with France in order to reduce costs will not result in a further delay for the carriers' introduction? If we are to have the carriers, they will have to be based somewhere. What does today's statement tell us about the Government's longer-term plans for our naval bases? Where will the carriers be based? If he can be so specific about job cuts, can he be more specific about his wider intentions?
	There is no suitable dry dock for a 65,000 tonne 900 ft carrier at Portsmouth or Devonport. Construction of a new dock or the lengthening of the existing docks would be a very expensive process. What are the Government's plans?
	We welcome the retention of three of our existing naval bases. That will be welcomed on both sides of the House, and it is a matter on which we have campaigned, but there will be a strong suspicion that we did not get the full details today. Finally on this, can the Secretary of State guarantee that we will continue to have eight attack submarines, as we have been promised?
	We will look at the Government's expenditure plans in great detail. We are involved in two long military conflicts. They have cost the lives of 227 of our servicemen and women, and have cost the taxpayer over £7 billion. The intensity of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in the loss of equipment and in equipment being worn out much more quickly than would otherwise have been expected. In other words, the defence budget needs to rise faster than predicted just for us to stand still. On top of this, there is increasing evidence that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been fully funded by the special reserve and that there has been salami slicing of equipment and training budgets to fill the gap.
	The Secretary of State told us that the budget will go up by £7.7 billion by 2011. During the period up to 2011, what costs will be incurred in the procurement of the carriers, the procurement of the JSF, the Trident replacement programme, the procurement of the Type 45s, the future rapid effect system, the cost of upgrading the naval bases for the carriers, and the cost of replacing assets lost, damaged or prematurely worn out by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Only when we have detailed answers to those questions will we be able to make a judgment on whether this is anything like an adequate settlement for the armed forces, given what they are being asked to do. Under the current Prime Minister, we are only too well aware, following his last Budget, that financial statements that look good today can look very different tomorrow. If there is any sleight of hand in what the Government are saying on defence expenditure, it will not be forgiven by our troops in combat or in this House.

Willie Rennie: I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of it.
	On the spending announcement, the Secretary of State will understand that we will wish to study the content in detail over the coming period. It will be important for us to ensure that the difficulties with overstretch and shortages in personnel and the problems with equipment are addressed. I am sure that the communities of the three Navy bases will welcome the decision but will perhaps wait with trepidation as regards the potential job losses.
	If Britain is to be a force for good around the world, the carriers will be an essential part of our capability. With them, we will be able to conduct operations in far- flung parts. Can the Secretary of State explain what role the dockyards at Rosyth, Barrow, the Clyde and Portsmouth will play? If the final commissioning is to take place at Rosyth, that will be one of the most complex construction projects ever on the Forth, and even more significant than the iconic Forth bridge. The carriers will be a dramatic sight from many parts of Fife, including North Queensferry in my constituency and the home of the Prime Minister. With construction taking place in all parts of the UK, this will be Britain at its best.
	It has been said that if the carriers can be built on time and within budget, other countries will be interested in buying from us. Which countries are interested? Is the JSF still the aircraft of choice for the carriers? We have heard about delays with the JSF—what effect will that have on the carriers? Can the Secretary of State clarify when all forces' accommodation will be brought up to standard?

Neil Turner: I welcome the announcement to build the two carriers. They will be vital to the Royal Navy's ability to operate independently, if necessary, throughout the world. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of the Barrow shipyard not just to south Cumbria, but to the whole of the north-west. Will he therefore confirm that a substantial proportion of the two carriers will be built at the Barrow shipyard?

Des Browne: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I respect the knowledge that he has gained, not just in his time as a Minister at the Ministry of Defence but in the valuable service he provides to the House in his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Defence, the role of which we in the MOD greatly value. Nobody in the House could do anything other than respect views that he expresses.
	In relation to the overall spending envelope available to the Government in this spending review, defence has done four times as well as it has done in the past. That may not be the step change that the right hon. Gentleman wants, but there is something this Government cannot be criticised for: it cannot be said of us, unlike the previous Government, that we have not increased spending quite substantially, year on year, in real terms. Indeed, we have committed ourselves to investment in the long term, as well as in excess of £6 billion from the reserves to support those troops we have committed to the front line.
	We ask a lot of our forces, and we focused on that over the weekend because of a leaked report, which allegedly said something that I said at the Dispatch Box, if not in exactly the same words, but almost in terms. The right hon. Gentleman will know, as will many other hon. Members, that we do not intend to sustain the commitment we are asking of our armed forces, and there are already clear indications that we are significantly reducing it, not just in Iraq but in Bosnia, and we are coming to the end of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we are moving into an environment where we will not be asking our troops for that level of commitment continuously, and we can then address some of the issues that that would have generated otherwise.

John Robertson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today and, along with 2,000 workers in the Scotstoun yard in my constituency and all the other workers on the Clyde, I thank him. On the work that is coming to the Clyde, and while I do not want to appear greedy, would he perhaps make a statement on what is happening with No. 7 and No. 8 of the Type 45s, which would keep those workers in employment well beyond the next decade?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows that we refer to these as a combined taskforce. We talk about carriers in relation not just to the actual boat but to what flies from the carrier and supports it. There will be a combined taskforce that reflects all of the threats, which is why we are putting this significant investment into submarines so that there is such capability to be deployed when it needs to be.

Michael Jack: The Minister for Defence Equipment and Support has made it clear that if the technology share agreement that affects the development of the joint strike fighter is found wanting Britain may not buy that aircraft for the carriers. Are there sufficient resources in the settlement to maintain the development of a marine version of the Eurofighter Typhoon?

Des Browne: In our negotiations about the joint strike fighter programme we are not planning for failure. Having said that, as my noble Friend Lord Drayson said, including to the right hon. Gentleman, we have contingency planning for that—albeit remote—eventuality. Of course, that planning includes the necessary resources to carry through the development.

Des Browne: There is no intention of condemning anybody to death by a thousand cuts. I made it clear to those who conducted the review that I wanted an honest assessment and not something that misrepresented the position and then got us into salami slicing in the communities that we are considering. That would have been dishonest and inappropriate. I am advised comprehensively by the outcome of the review that we can sustain significant bases in all three places. I am not prepared, outwith the appropriate consultations and discussions that need to take place, to bandy figures or even general descriptions. However, let me emphasise that there will be co-operative, open and continued discussion with hon. Members. We will share information with hon. Members to the extent that we can as the next process goes on. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of making salami cuts, but I do not want a continuation of competition between the bases for the opportunities that exist. It is now time for us all to co-operate and work in the way in which the industry and the Ministry of Defence are beginning to show people can be done for a future for all of us.

Crispin Blunt: So inadequate was the provision for defence expenditure from the previous Conservative Government that this Government, for whom the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) was Minister for the Armed Forces, decided to cut the budget by £1 billion a year—a cut that was reduced to £500 million a year only by the intervention of the then Chief of the Defence Staff. A little less political spin in the Secretary of State's statement would have done a little more honour to his office. To describe the real increase on defence expenditure given in the figures as quite substantial breaks any reasoned connection with the English language. The armed forces are exhausted and worn out. Their forward equipment programme will be substantially damaged by the expenditure involved in trying to accommodate the aircraft carriers and aircraft. What are the consequences for the forward equipment programme of the Secretary of State's statement today?

Angus Robertson: It is a fact that there are fewer shipbuilding jobs in Scotland now than there were in 1997. It is therefore welcome to hear today's announcement on the carriers and the news that Scotland's only operating naval base is to be retained. However, is the Secretary of State aware of concerns about job retention on the Clyde in relation to the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—project? Seeing as we are talking about timescales two days before the recess, will he confirm that he now expects the board of inquiry into the Afghan Nimrod tragedy to take place during the recess?

David Heath: Representing Royal Naval air station Yeovilton, I warmly welcome the announcement on the future carriers. Has a decision been taken on the future use of the existing carriers? In particular, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the need for a second helicopter carrier to supplement HMS Ocean?

Kevan Jones: I warmly welcome the announcement of the carriers today. It is good news not only for the Navy and the shipbuilding industry, but for the defence industry. The announcement will also be good news in the north-east, as a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises will get work from the contract. I urge my right hon. Friend to ask the consortium to work with non-defence industries and other organisations that help SMEs to get work in the supply chain, so that the maximum economic impact of the orders is spread throughout the United Kingdom.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware that the MOD's annual report, which was published on 23 July, revealed important weaknesses in the preparedness of our armed forces, and the strain that they are now experiencing on operations. May I have your guidance on the importance of the MOD giving accurate information to the Vote Office on when such reports are to be published? The Vote Office was informed—and informed the shadow defence team—that this important report would be released at 2 o'clock, but, in the event, it was finally released at 4 o'clock. A similar thing happened the previous year, when a similarly important and revealing report was snuck out at the end of a day and the House did not have an adequate opportunity to consider it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The response that I have to give to the hon. Gentleman is a hybrid of the two that I have already given. Yes, of course it is important that Members should get information as swiftly as it becomes available to be disseminated. At the same time, there may yet be an opportunity before the House goes into recess for the hon. Gentleman further to pursue this subject on behalf of his constituents. Governments have faced this perennial problem over the years in trying to produce information: an awful lot of it comes out at the last minute. That is an occupational hazard for the legislature and the Executive. There is still an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to pursue the matter, however.

Daniel Kawczynski: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer further powers on the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to investigate the prices of milk paid by retailers to producers; and for connected purposes.
	I am still reeling over the issue of unitary authorities, but I shall endeavour to calm myself and introduce my ten-minute Bill on milk pricing. It is an appropriate time to do so, as the front page of  The Daily Telegraph says that the price of milk and food is set to soar over the summer—and not just because of the flooding, but on account of the tremendous crisis in the dairy industry. It is so bad that many of our dairy farmers are going out of business, which will ultimately affect the consumer.
	At the moment, many of my Shropshire farmers are paid as little as 16p a litre for the milk that goes to supermarkets. Today, I spoke to Tesco and found that it charges 58p a litre to its customers. I would like Parliament to think for a moment about the huge margin between 16p and 58p a litre. Any hon. Member representing a rural constituency will know how hard dairy farmers work. They face an unsustainable price for their milk: 16p a litre is simply not enough. That is why hundreds of dairy farmers have gone out of business and lost their livelihoods. In addition, dairy farmers face huge levels of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs red tape and bureaucracy. To cap it all, there is the tremendous crisis of bovine tuberculosis.
	I asked the relevant Minister about the number of cases of bovine TB in Shropshire in the year 2000 and was given the figure of 39. In 2006, however, the number had increased to 147. We have seen a massive increase in the number of cases of bovine TB in Shropshire and, in my estimation, the Government are doing very little to tackle it. When I first became an MP, I was lobbied by my Shrewsbury farmers on many occasions to do something about the problem and to take up their cause.
	I started to speak out on these issues two years ago as an individual MP. I had extensive meetings with various chief executives from various supermarkets. The first one I met was the chief executive of ASDA—and it got me absolutely nowhere. People like him were simply not prepared to acknowledge that there was a problem. They simply refused to consider the long-term ramifications for the indigenous production of milk in this country. They simply were not prepared to acknowledge the crisis.
	That explains why I decided to set up the all-party group for dairy farmers—and I am very pleased to see some of its members in their places here today. In fact, we have become one of the largest such groups in Parliament. As of today, we number 157 Members from all parties. That shows the extent of feeling on this issue among all political parties; we all want to do something to ensure that the UK continues to have a dairy industry.
	One group that has greatly helped me and the all-party group is the women's institute, which had adopted this issue as one of its main areas of campaigning. It organised a major petition up and down the country, securing hundreds of thousands of signatures, which was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). The WI also had a series of national debates throughout the country, where it brought supermarket chief executives together with farmers and other interested parties. I participated in two of those national debates: one in the west mid show in my constituency of Shrewsbury, the other close to Parliament where I debated with Mr. Justin King, the Sainsbury chief executive.
	The greatest publicity came not just from we politicians, but from a single individual WI member from Gloucestershire who came on a very cold January morning wearing nothing but a bikini. They were pouring bottles of milk all over her as she sat in a bath just outside the House of Commons. That went down very well, I have to say, and got us a great deal of publicity. I applaud her for doing that on such a cold day and for being prepared to be photographed in a bikini with all that milk being poured all over her.
	The all-party group listened to hundreds and hundreds of hours of evidence. We have had many meetings with various interested parties. We met the Office of Fair Trading and many farming organisations, including the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. Supermarket bosses were called as well as many consumer organisations. We have even led a cross-party delegation to Brussels to lobby the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mrs. Fischer Boel. For an arch Eurosceptic like myself, the idea of going to Brussels to ask the EU to intervene to help save the British dairy industry was quite difficult. However, I had to do so, in desperation at the lack of action by the Labour Government.
	That activity and the national campaign had some results, as the supermarkets have started to feel embarrassed about this issue. I know that Tesco is leading the way in increasing the prices paid to farmers. On some occasions, it pays 22p a litre, but that affects only 450 local farmers, so we need to increase that number significantly.
	I shall place the all-party dairy farmers group report in the Library. It may not be a very Conservative thing to do, but I desperately wanted to call for a regulator for supermarkets. Regrettably, there was no consensus in the group about that matter. As a Conservative, I usually do not like to interfere in market forces; it is quite an unusual thing for a Conservative to want to regulate in that way, yet we have regulators in all our major industries. On my way to Parliament earlier today, I passed the offices of Ofgem, and then there is Ofwat and Ofgas, for example. Everything is regulated apart from the supermarkets.
	I would like a regulator, but I cannot get the support of my group on this issue. What we can achieve, what my Bill sets out to achieve and what we can agree upon, I believe, is more powers for the Office of Fair Trading to investigate what supermarkets pay for milk. When the OFT came before the all-party group, it said—this is set out in all our notes—that it would very much like to be able to investigate supermarkets and shine more of a spotlight on them, but that regrettably its hands were tied and it did not have the power to do so. The Bill will enable the OFT to scrutinise the supermarkets in a much better way.
	Tesco has announced an extra £25 million of investment to increase the price for milk. It is also getting local brands and offering its customers the opportunity to pay more for local milk such as Dorset milk in supermarkets in Dorset. I am negotiating with Tesco to try to get Shropshire milk to be sold in Shropshire supermarkets. I urge all MPs to negotiate and lobby with Tesco to get local milk in their supermarkets from their own counties. This is a very good first step and I applaud Tesco for this measure. I will not rest until I can go to Tesco and buy Shropshire milk from my local Shropshire dairy farmers.
	This Bill will place some extra pressure on the supermarkets. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Daniel Kawczynski, Tim Farron, Mr. Stephen Crabb, Ann Winterton, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Lembit Opik, Mr. Roger Williams, Mr. Christopher Fraser, David T.C. Davies, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger and Mr. Soames.
	Daniel Kawczynski accordingly presented a Bill to confer further powers on the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to investigate the prices of milk paid by retailers to producers; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 151].

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendments.
	We agree with the Lords amendments. We have only a short time for the debate, so my opening remarks will brief. I hope that I will secure the consent of the House to respond to the points raised and that we can discuss post-legislative scrutiny in the time allotted.
	The House disagreed with Lords amendment No. 22 on annuitisation because the draft would have had undesirable effects. Subsequently, the other place did not insist on it. However, the Government had some sympathy with the aim of the amendment and accepted amendment No. 22B from the Opposition in its place. We were persuaded by the arguments.
	The background is that in this House last week I announced that the cost of extending the financial assistance scheme to give pensioners more might be met by better use of the assets remaining in pension schemes, in accordance with the recommendations of Andrew Young, along with a matching contribution from the Government. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome my noble Friend Lord McKenzie's announcement yesterday that we have decided to accept the Young review's recommendation that we should not enforce a cut-off date for employer insolvency. The cut-off date of 31 August 2007, announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, will not be enforced. We will consult on whether there should be any cut-off date and introduce regulations in due course.
	As I said last week, we wrote to trustees to urge them to consider very carefully whether purchasing annuities is in the best interests of their members. That may well have been enough, but we accept that reinforcing that message in law has some merit. Therefore, we will take powers to prevent annuitisation by FAS qualifying schemes to ensure the greatest benefit to the greatest number of pension scheme members.
	Amendment No. 22B has the same broad objective as amendment No. 22, but achieves it without the difficulties of the previous version. Amendment No. 22B puts a hold on annuitisation for the benefit of members of qualifying pension schemes hoping to see the extra funds raised by the assets within schemes matched by the Government. However, it also allows trustees to buy annuities, where appropriate, if they have the approval of the FAS scheme manager, who in law is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. That is a sensible and flexible approach, although clearly we will need to give careful thought to the circumstances in which it might happen and how scheme managers exercise their discretion.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for his concise introduction to the amendments.
	As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—this is probably about as much as I can say on the matter—the debate on many of the amendments that form the lifeboat fund has been ended by the invocation of the Parliament Acts. In short, I believe that the Government realised they were losing the arguments and decided to shut down the debate. That is a blatant affront, not only to this House but to the victims who have lost their pensions. This is probably our last opportunity to debate this Pensions Bill, although the joy of my job and the Minister's is that another Pensions Bill is always just around the corner.
	Only recently, our new Prime Minister told the nation that he believed in
	"restoring power to Parliament and rebuilding public trust in democracy."
	He said:
	"I want to lead a Government humble enough to know its place—where I will always strive to be—and that is on the people's side."
	He should tell that to the 125,000 people who were looking to the lifeboat fund for help. The big clunking fist has crashed down, and the Government have invoked the Parliament Acts and stopped any further discussion. They have, in effect, torpedoed the lifeboat.
	Even before the Government did that, however, there were dark threats from Government sources that if the lifeboat fund amendments did get through, they might abandon the whole Bill, leaving victims with even less money than they would have received under the Government's latest proposals. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to dissociate himself from such threats. I can assure him that the campaign to get proper help to those victims will continue both inside and outside Parliament. If the Prime Minister thinks that he has heard the last of this issue, he is very much mistaken.
	The amendments on annuitisation are the remaining vestiges of the raft of lifeboat fund amendments. It is also perhaps worth reminding the House that that approach to bulk annuity purchase has been advocated by the Conservatives for at least a couple of years and by campaigners such as Ros Altmann for even longer. Can the Minister make an estimate of the pension fund assets that have already been committed to annuity purchase in the time scale and are therefore no longer available to provide direct help to the victims?
	The Minister touched on the recent report by Andrew Young and his team. It is worth quickly reviewing some of the major conclusions on this subject. On page 13, they concluded that there was some £1.7 billion of uncommitted assets in schemes eligible for FAS assistance that are in the process of winding up. What we do not know is where they are in that process at this precise moment. Andrew Young also concluded in chapter 4:
	"The current process of annuitisation on a scheme by scheme basis is unlikely to offer the best use of residual scheme assets."
	I am delighted that that is now accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House in considering what should happen next to those remaining pension assets.
	The latest amendments are a compromise. I am delighted to hear that the Minister is prepared to accept them. They were drafted by my colleague Lord Skelmersdale in the other place and they cover the issues of real concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The most important is amendment No. 22B, which places a temporary restriction on the purchase of annuities. It would fair to describe the others as consequential. The noble Lord McKenzie said:
	"It strikes a pragmatic approach by putting a hold on annuitisation for the benefit of all members of qualifying pension schemes who hope to see the extra funds generated by the assets within their schemes matched by the Government, while allowing trustees to purchase annuities with the permission of the scheme manager where it would be appropriate to do so."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 711.]
	I have some questions, which the Minister may be able to deal with today, with the leave of the House, or in correspondence. First, the Young report talks about total unallocated assets of £1.7 billion in pension funds within the FAS. What proportion of those assets is likely to be affected by the proposed regulations? Secondly, the Government have promised to publish regulations. I think that that was made clear by Lord McKenzie. Can the Minister give me an idea of the time scale during which he expects to be able to do so? Thirdly, the Minister told us that he has written to trustees. Is he prepared to put a copy of that letter in the Library and perhaps supply copies to Front-Bench spokesmen in this and the other House so that we can see exactly what he has said to them?
	May I also touch on the issue of those circumstances in which some trustees may wish to proceed with purchasing annuities in the usual way? That was dealt with by Lord Skelmersdale in the other place when he made the point that his principal amendment gives the FAS scheme manager—the Secretary of State—discretion to allow annuities to be purchased in
	"some—I expect rare—instances. For example, that could be where a scheme is only lightly under-funded and therefore members are unlikely to benefit from the FAS overall."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 713.]
	I must say in parentheses, however, that one wonders why they might be in that situation in the first place. Will the Minister confirm today or in writing that it is his understanding that the scheme manager—the Secretary of State—would permit such a purchase only in rare circumstances, and usually when there were merely small amounts of underfunding in a scheme? If that is not his understanding, will he tell us what circumstances he envisages triggering the purchase of annuities?
	My understanding of the Government position—I am happy to allow the Minister to intervene if I am overselling it—is that in almost every case they are now expecting trustees in schemes that are in the FAS not to bulk-purchase annuities for the foreseeable future, and that in the rare cases when they might want to purchase annuities they would almost certainly be almost totally funded and would seek the permission of the scheme manager.
	There is consensus between Ministers and Conservative Front Benchers that from this day forward the bulk purchase of annuities for FAS-based schemes will be rare, and that assets will be husbanded with a view not to buying annuities but to providing benefits directly to scheme members. On that basis, I commend the amendments—I call them the Skelmersdale amendments —as providing a sensible and practical resolution of an honourable and decent difference of opinion on how to approach the issue. I hope that they are workable, and I look forward to seeing the regulations in draft and I would be interested to know when they are likely to appear.

Danny Alexander: I welcome the opportunity to debate this amendment and those that we shall soon address. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made clear, the amendment on annuities, which this House debated last week and which the House of Lords rejected and replaced with those before us today, was part of a wider raft of amendments on the lifeboat fund. I can do no better than quote the remarks in the House of Lords debate yesterday of my party colleague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay. He quoted the conclusion of the Young review. On page 29 of the review it is stated that
	"the current FAS scheme is not the best way of ensuring good value, as there is a complicated process and benefit structure, considerable duplication of administration, insufficient risk-pooling etc."
	In other words, even the Government's own review comes to that conclusion. Lord Oakeshott further said on other amendments with which this one had previously been grouped:
	"One hundred and twenty-five thousand members of failed pension schemes have been robbed twice; first when their funds collapsed, and now by a government ruse to block House of Lords"—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 708.]
	debate on the Pensions Bill. I wholeheartedly agree with Lord Oakeshott's sentiments—and I also pay tribute to his work in campaigning for the 125,000 pensioners whose pension rights have been removed and who have campaigned so assiduously.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that intervention. The Minister referred to amendment No. 22B which would provide support for members of the FAS by blocking the bulk-purchase of annuities using the assets that remain in schemes. Its purpose is to allow the unused funds that are left in the pension schemes to be used to improve the benefits within the FAS. It is a great shame that the Minister is still unwilling to state that he agrees with the position set out by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and, more significantly from the Minister's point of view, by many of his Back Benchers. The right, just and decent thing to do would be to ensure that those whose pension schemes collapsed before the introduction of the Pension Protection Fund and who therefore benefit under the FAS should receive benefits at the same level as those in the PPF. We have consistently articulated that position. That is the purpose to which any funds that can be husbanded through the judicious and speedy application of regulations under the amendment should be put. That is what the 125,000 people, organised so admirably by Dr. Ros Altmann and others, have been campaigning for. Much anger was expressed on this matter in the debate in the other place, but such anger is more strongly felt by the 125,000 people who believe that, unaccountably, they will have to wait longer than they had expected to get what they regard as a just and decent settlement.
	We welcome the amendment. In last week's debate, I observed that what was then amendment No. 22 served the Government's purpose. At that time, the Minister denied that. I am delighted that common sense has prevailed and that the Government have accepted this revised version of that amendment.
	I have a couple of questions about how the Minister intends to implement it. Lord McKenzie has made it clear that the Government intend to introduce regulations under the amendment. How quickly do they intend to do so? Clearly, the regulations are subject to a negative procedure. Can they be introduced during the summer recess, or will that have to wait until October? As has been said, time is of the essence. According to the Young review, £1.7 billion of assets remain in the schemes. As the Young review also made clear, and as was made clear in last week's debate, any delay could result in some of the funds being annuitised by scheme managers.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for the speed with which he is seeking to act and for his generosity in suggesting a consultation, which I would welcome. He is right—time is of the essence and we should get on with this. If that means that a shorter than usual consultation period is necessary, or no consultation period at all, we Liberal Democrats would be perfectly happy with that, given the imperative in these circumstances.
	If I have read amendment No. 22B correctly, it places a restriction on the purchase of annuities for a maximum of nine months. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:
	"The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for securing that, during the period of 9 months beginning with the date on which the regulations come into force, the trustees of the relevant pension schemes are prohibited from purchasing, or agreeing to purchase, annuities on behalf of qualifying members".
	It was perhaps Lord Skelmersdale who came up with the nine-month period, but the Government obviously agreed to it. Does the Minister think that that is the length of time needed for the Government to introduce and act on the conclusions of the Young review? Given that the House has reached a positive consensus on this very narrow issue, it would be a shame if the limited time scale specified in the amendment meant that, although bulk annuitisation was restricted for that period, it was not until after that period had elapsed that progress was made on using the assets in those funds. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
	Like our colleagues in the House of Lords, we Liberal Democrats in this place are more than happy to accept these amendments, which represent a good step forward. I wish only to register my deep sadness that they are not part of the wider lifeboat scheme that the original amendment was introduced as part of.

Michael Weir: I just want to make a few points. I agree with what the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) said about the lifeboat fund. It is a shame that it is not in the amendments; none the less, I do support them.
	To my mind, the original House of Lords amendment was perfectly adequate, and I do not understand why there has been such a hoo-hah about changing it. I am concerned about subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in amendment No. 22B, which states:
	"The regulations must make provision...for authorising the scheme manager to approve the purchase of any such annuities if the scheme manager thinks it appropriate to do so."
	We are talking about a nine-month period; however, speed is of the essence in dealing with these issues. One scheme in my constituency, operated by a solvent employer, illustrates the slow crawl through this legislation that has taken place to get some justice. As the Bill progressed, the Minister rightly agreed that that employer should be covered by the financial assistance scheme, which it previously had not been. The trustees were asking that annuities be bought for those in the scheme who were retiring. Had that change not been made when it was, that scheme would have been annuitised and the assets lost. There is therefore an urgent need to get this situation sorted out.
	The original amendment would have imposed a straightforward ban for nine months on annuitising such schemes. I can understand why some slight wriggle room has been provided in certain circumstances, but I am concerned that in cases where trustees want to annuitise a scheme, they will have to make an application to the Secretary of State, who will presumably have to investigate the particular circumstances of that scheme before deciding whether to allow annuitisation. That is an extra burden of bureaucracy that the original amendment did not impose; it simply provided for a nine-month ban until the situation has been sorted out. Presumably, all the scheme assets would then have gone into the general FAS pot, which is a better approach. Does the Minister feel that amendment No. 22B imposes an extra bureaucratic layer that could lead to delay, and could require the Secretary of State to investigate many schemes that it would otherwise not have been necessary to investigate?

Mike O'Brien: It was the Young report, not the Government, that torpedoed the lifeboat, but it was pretty leaky anyway. Rafts were mentioned in various analogies, and the lifeboat was a cobbled-together raft that sank of its own volition. We warned the Opposition that it would sink, and it did. Let us move on and see how, realistically, we can help the pensioners involved, because that is the important thing.
	The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) asks, reasonably, why the funding will not be to the PPF level. The answer is that the PPF is essentially an insurance scheme and people make contributions to it, as a result of which they are entitled to payments from it. If we were to go to PPF levels, that would have to be funded. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Liberal Democrats would be happy to put Government funding into that. That is a straightforward point of view, and I understand and respect it. However, the Conservatives have always said that they would not put loads of Government money into the scheme. They would not be prepared to spend an extra £1 billion. They are silent on that point, and as far as they are concerned, there would be no extra money. They claim that the funding would somehow be obtained from the unclaimed assets, but that has now been torpedoed.
	The various claims being made by the Opposition parties differ. I give the hon. Gentleman credit for saying straightforwardly that he would spend more taxpayers' money. However, I think that we should be cautious about deciding to spend large amounts of Government money on ensuring that those who have not paid the insurance premiums into the pot, as the people in the PPF scheme have paid, should get the same benefits because the Government chipped in. We have to get the right balance between the rights of the pensioners and the rights of the taxpayers. By saying that they would not spend large amounts of taxpayers' money, the Conservatives recognise that that balance needs to be struck, but they claim that they can magic the money from somewhere else. I do not accept that.
	The claim is made that a threat has somehow been made to withdraw the increase to 80 per cent. if the Bill goes into the spill-over period. That was the substance of a letter that Conservative Front Benchers sent out earlier today, but it is complete nonsense. It is true that I warned in the last debate that if the Bill was delayed into the spill-over period the increase from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. in the cover under the financial assistance scheme would also be delayed, and pensioners would not get it over the summer—and I think that they deserve it. That is why I am pleased that the Opposition have agreed to the amendments and that the Bill can receive Royal Assent so that the increase to 80 per cent. can begin to be paid by the FAS operational unit. That will happen within days of Royal Assent, which I hope will occur shortly.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne made several other points, which I shall address briefly. He mentioned that Lord Skelmersdale had drafted the amendment, but for the sake of clarity I suggest that he had a little help from his friends. As far as the Young report is concerned, the total assets are £1.7 billion. He asked what percentage was likely to be effective, and the answer is that almost all of that sum will be covered, as he suggested.
	As for the regulations and the timescale, I have already said that we would like to introduce the regulations as quickly as possible. We will happily show them to Opposition Front Benchers, but we want to put them into operation quickly. That means that we will not consult widely on them. I am happy to put a copy of the letter that I sent last week in the Library, and send one to Opposition Front Benchers. I apologise for not ensuring that that had been done before.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether seeking the consent of the Secretary of State was likely to be rare. From our point of view, it would be rare. It might happen if an otherwise fully funded scheme were close to being wound up, but found that it had a small gap. It would therefore not stand to benefit very much from the FAS, so the trustees might ask the Secretary of State whether they could annuitise in those circumstances. The Secretary of State would look at the facts and take a view. Such circumstances would be rare, which is why we do not want annuitisation to proceed for funds engaged with the FAS—and that would be the purpose of the amendments.
	The only other question that I was asked had to do with the nine-month period, and I can tell the House that we are looking at the nine months from September. We hope that Young will report in November, and we expect to be able to make some decisions fairly quickly thereafter. We do not yet know the full terms of the Young report, so we will have to wait and see what it contains, but we want to put various alternative courses of action before the House as quickly as possible. Details of any substitute scheme will be made known in regulations put in place before the nine months elapse.
	Finally, despite the bit of political knockabout that we had, I am grateful for the positive reaction of the hon. Member for Eastbourne to the amendments, and I hope that he will adopt a similar approach to the next group.
	 Lords amendments agreed to.
	 Lords amendment: No. 28.

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment No. 28 but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
	I shall be brief. We considered that Lord Fowler's amendment No. 28 was unnecessary, not least because we have already made commitments to keep under review the reforms enacted by this Bill. However, we have reservations about the exact terms of the amendment. Although we may have an idea about what the term "post-legislative scrutiny" means, we are reluctant to commit the Secretary of State to complying with a duty until there is a clear understanding of what that might entail. No final agreement has been reached about what post-legislative scrutiny would entail, so we have proposed instead that the Secretary of State present to Parliament a report on the operation of the Act that will give Parliament an opportunity to consider and debate the findings.
	We also took the view that 2011 would be too early for a review to be conducted, as only the measures relating to new qualifying conditions for state pensions would have come into effect by then. Many of the provisions in the Bill would not have come into effect by that date, so we suggested in the other place that the Secretary of State should present the report by the end of 2017. That would follow a period of some years when all the measures, apart from the increase in state pension age, had had time to bed in. It would also allow us to consider whether we were taking the appropriate steps to ensure the smooth implementation of the state pension age changes in 2024.
	It was evident from yesterday's debate in the other place that their Lordships were dissatisfied with the proposed date for the Secretary of State's review. We now propose, therefore, that he should present his report by the end of 2014. I understand that Conservative Front-Bench spokespersons in the other place would be satisfied with that compromise, although for completeness I should tell the House that Government amendment (b), to clause 28, is purely consequential. Clause 28 defines the extent of the measures in the Bill, and the amendment would ensure that any review of the operation of the Act in due course would take account of the provisions as they relate to Northern Ireland.
	I believe that the proposed amendments in lieu are sensible, and consistent with the principles of good administration. I hope that they command the support of the House.

Nigel Waterson: As the Minister has explained, the Government amendments are, in effect, a compromise arising from the Lords debates, and on behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome them. Lord Fowler made a powerful case in the Lords for the principle of post-legislative scrutiny. In recent times, we have heard a lot about pre-legislative scrutiny, and that of course has its place. However, one can actually sustain the argument that scrutinising the effects of legislation after the event is every bit as important, if not more so.
	In a powerful speech in the Lords on 11 July, Lord Fowler made his case extremely well, based on his massive experience in such matters. He gave two specific examples. The first related to the Social Security Act 1986, the state earnings-related pension scheme and subsequent issues such as compensation claims and the non-issue of leaflets. In that case, he thought that post-legislative scrutiny would have made a significant difference.
	Lord Fowler's second example related to some of the issues dealt with by the parliamentary ombudsman, the High Court, the European Court and Select Committees in recent times. It is not for me to rehearse all the arguments on this occasion. The issues are currently before the courts, but he uses them to show how a post-legislative scrutiny procedure could have picked up some potential problems and some of the misinformation on the basis of which the ombudsman found that there had been maladministration.
	Lord Fowler came in for a certain amount of criticism from the Minister in the other place for leaving rather vague the issue of who would actually perform such scrutiny. However, as Lord Fowler said:
	"The amendment would give the Government maximum flexibility."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 1410.]
	There is some merit in that view.
	Most important is the commonsense point that every time we pass pensions legislation in the House the law of unintended consequences runs through it. It was trumpeted that one of the principal aims of the Pensions Act 2004 was the protection and enhancement of defined benefit schemes. In fact, the measure accelerated the closure of such schemes to new entrants and even to existing members, so I permit myself a wry smile when I consider the arguments in the Lords about the time scale for post-legislative scrutiny. Is it not interesting that within barely two years of the 2004 Act the Government's White Paper announced a review of its provisions? Any Government worth their salt would look closely at such legislation in a much shorter time scale than that proposed in either the original amendment or the compromise amendment. It is ironic that on this very day the Government published the results of the regulatory review.
	We on the Conservative Benches are keen supporters of Lord Fowler's proposition that major legislation deserves proper post-legislative scrutiny. I join Lord Fowler in noting the fact that the new Prime Minister has said that he wants to restore the role of Parliament, and we welcome the Government's deathbed conversion to the principle. I understand that Lord Fowler and his colleagues in the Lords are content with the amendment proposed; therefore I am too, so we shall not oppose it. However, if and when we win the next election we shall certainly carry out our own thorough review of this and other recent pensions legislation.

Danny Alexander: The activities in the other place to add the concept of post-legislative scrutiny to the Bill played a useful role. The work done by Lord Fowler, supported by Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Cross-Bencher colleagues, to insist on that concept has in the end managed to wheedle from the Government a useful amendment in response. That goes some way towards meeting the objectives set out in the Lords and on that basis I welcome the Government's amendment.
	The Bill will have a very long-term impact indeed. The main impact of the legislation will be felt not in one, two, three or four years' time, but for generations to come. It is appropriate therefore that there be scrutiny of the Bill's impact once it receives Royal Assent and becomes law. That is true for a number of reasons, the first of which is the point that Lord Fowler made in his speech in the other place about perceiving and acting on errors or mistakes that may have been made. Government amendment (a) will allow the possibility of proper scrutiny in the future of some of the flaws in the Bill that my hon. Friends and I have highlighted during its passage. The Government deny that there are flaws, but the truth will become certain only with the passage of time. Government amendment (a) will allow time to elapse before those issues can be properly examined.
	I hope in particular that, in implementing Government amendment (a) in relation to reviewing and preparing a report on the operation of the Act, the Secretary of State, whoever he is by 2014, will have regard to questions about the extent to which means-testing is still a pervasive part of the system by that date. No doubt, we will debate this when the next pensions Bill comes down the track—one is expected in the next Session—but I remain of the view that the extent to which means-testing is still a pervasive part of the system, or mass means-testing, should be considered. I believe very much that that could well undermine personal accounts, the establishment of the delivery authority for which is part of the Bill.
	The Liberal Democrats have concerns about what the way in which the Bill operates will mean for the rights of many women pensioners to have access to a full state pension, a matter which we debated briefly last week. Again, I hope that the Secretary of State can include that in his report. The Minister rightly referred in his opening remarks to the increases in the state pension age that will follow the Bill. Again, reviews of the proper operation of the implementation of that will be important.
	The Bill relates to the uprating of pensions in line with earnings. We have been given a date—I think that it is 2012—but we have also been told that the uprating might not happen for two or three years after that. It might well not happen until the end of that Parliament. Although I am not able to predict the dates on which Parliaments begin and end, it is possible that the uprating in line with earnings will not start until 2015. I hope that the timing of the report before the end of 2014 will, if necessary—I hope that it is not—act as strong corrective to any governmental wish to delay yet further the implementation of the uprating in line with earnings.
	The Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats have called for that uprating to take place immediately, and I remain of that view. Even if the Minister is not of that view, I hope that by including the report in the Bill under Government amendment (a) and by having to produce such a report and to bring it before Parliament, where we would expect to debate it, so that it could come under scrutiny and pressure from hon. Members about possible failure to deliver the content of the Bill, we will ensure that Ministers act quickly to do the decent thing in relation to the uprating in line with earnings and to introduce it, at least by their own timetable, inadequate though the Liberal Democrats believe it is. With those few words, I say that the Liberal Democrats will be happy for the House to pass these amendments.

Mike O'Brien: I begin by thanking both Opposition spokespersons and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) for supporting the amendment.

Mike O'Brien: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave of the House to reply to the debate.
	These are important amendments. It is perhaps fitting, as we move towards the conclusion of the Bill, that the amendment has been dealt with in a spirit of compromise. That is important because pensions, above all, require a consensus to be built around long-term planning for the way in which we develop security for the elderly in the future.
	The Bill will enable a lot of legislation to be passed—some of it potentially quite controversial, such as the provisions to increase the retirement age. We have been able to put those provisions through the House because the Turner report, and those who worked on it, provided the basis for a consensus to be built around pensions policy. There were some issues of political controversy during the course of the Bill. In the course of reviewing the Bill, perhaps a Minister will look at some of those issues, as well looking at the areas where we all agreed. It was important that we had that level of agreement and that we were able to get through some potentially very difficult issues. I extend the Government's thanks to Opposition Front-Bench Members for the way in which they broadly approached many of the issues.
	May I also place on record my thanks—and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) and other Ministers who dealt with the Bill before I did—for the way in which officials briefed us and ensured that we were able to find our way through some quite complex legislation? Of course, I look forward to working with the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) on the next Bill, which is likely to come forward fairly soon. I will consider the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth for the NAO to be involved. I will not give a commitment at this point, but it is an interesting suggestion and the Government will consider it.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way for what I imagine will be the last time during the passage of the Bill. May I join him and express the thanks of the official Opposition to the officials, the Clerks, all hon. Members who have spoken during the various stages of the Bill, the Minister's predecessors and the previous Secretary of State? Any blame for decisions that were made about the Bill that we think were wrong is attached entirely to Ministers. We are very grateful to everybody else.

Danny Alexander: May I add some remarks from the Liberal Democrat Benches to follow the remarks of the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)? Although I have not been associated with the Bill for very long, my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) were involved in the Committee stage and I would like to express our gratitude to the officials, the Clerks and so on—all of whom have assisted with the passage of the Bill. Although the consensus has not always been complete, there has been a model of working to achieve that. There may be a deal more controversy with the next Bill, but I look forward to the efforts that the Minister has said he will make to build consensus in that instance too.

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
	That this House endorses the nomination of Sir Michael Scholar KCB for appointment as Chair of the Statistics Board.
	I commend Sir Michael Scholar to the House as the chair of the board created by the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, which is now awaiting Royal Assent. Sir Michael was nominated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer after an open competition in line with the principles laid out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In recommending Sir Michael to the House, I draw Members' attention to his extensive, successful career in Government and academia, and of course, the recommendation of his candidature by the Select Committee on the Treasury following its pre-appointment hearing on Wednesday 18 July.
	In recommending Sir Michael for the role, the Treasury Committee said in its ninth report that
	"he has demonstrated to us his commitment to the independence, integrity and importance of statistics".
	I also draw Members' attention to the strong support offered for Sir Michael's appointment during the final stage of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill by Members on all Benches in the other place.
	As Members will be aware, the appointment is the first of its kind; confirmation to the post is subject to a pre-appointment hearing, and this debate, which may result in a Division, in accordance with the direction set out in the consultation document, "The Governance of Britain", is also a first. I note, too, the recommendations in the Select Committee report relating to public appointments more generally, and the proposals in the consultation document. The Government welcome the Committee's views and its interest in the subject. We intend to take time to consider the recommendations, and we will publish a full response to the Select Committee in due course.
	I thank the Treasury Committee for the invaluable role that it has played, and for the speed with which it was able to progress the issue, which ensured that the House had an opportunity to vote on Sir Michael's appointment before the recess. The Treasury Committee, under the able chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), has helped us a great deal, enabling us to move forward in a short space of time, and I thank him and his Committee members for that. I reiterate our support for Sir Michael, who was nominated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and endorsed by the Treasury Committee, following a full and rigorous selection process. He is an excellent nominee for the first Statistics Board chair.

John McFall: On Friday 13 July, I received a call from the Chancellor asking if the Treasury Committee would hold a pre-confirmation hearing into the appointment of the new chair of the Statistics Board if the appointment was made on the subsequent Monday. I was pleased to do that, because this is a new constitutional arrangement and it is important that Parliament, particularly its Select Committees, has more power. I pay tribute to the fellow members of my Committee and particularly to its staff, who have been under quite a lot of pressure in the past few months. We have had many reports to put out. Indeed, in the past few days, we have agreed reports on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, on private equity, and on unclaimed assets. The staff were very willing and able to prepare for this pre-appointment hearing.
	Sir Michael came before us on Wednesday 18 July, and we published our report on his nomination on Monday of this week. That report, and a transcript of the evidence we took from him, is available in the House, and I would like to make three short points about it in my speech. The first concerns Sir Michael's evidence, the second, the challenges he faces and the third relates to the role of the House of Commons and its Select Committees in the appointments process.
	Thanks to Sir Michael's evidence, we were satisfied unanimously as a Committee about his independence from Ministers and his commitment to the importance and integrity of statistics. We asked him tough questions, including one that I put to him at the beginning of the meeting about his close family connections with No. 10 Downing street—his son is the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. Sir Michael answered that question very clearly, saying that his son was a civil servant, and that he phoned him up after the appointment to congratulate him. He was very clear on that, and I have read since that Sir Michael prepared a report on independence for the Bank of England when he was personal assistant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, Lord Lawson, but it was not implemented by that Government. His son, Tom Scholar, however, was involved in the preparation of the report on independence for the Bank of England in 1997. The Governor of the Bank of England has referred to that as "a scholarly achievement" and I would endorse that comment.
	Sir Michael answered that question very satisfactorily. We also tested his willingness to take a position at odds with Ministers and we were encouraged by his answers. I suggest that we brought the best out of Sir Michael, because he is a civil servant, and he mentioned that since his retirement six years ago, and during his time spent heading St. John's college, Oxford that—unlike a number of other civil servants—he has never spoken to the press. We suggested to him that perhaps everything he had said in the past six years had been off the record, but it was very important that everything he said as chair of the Statistics Board was on the record, and that he should question the Government on a number of points.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and the Minister were both on the Treasury Select Committee, so if anyone thinks of it as a Select Committee that is in isolation from the House, they can forget it. I would suggest that on the evidence of today—from both the Front Benchers—the Treasury Committee is a good training ground for people who want to get on and get promotion. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for the distinction of their service on the Treasury Committee, and I wish both of them well for the future. I suggest that wishing both Front Benchers well shows a real independent stance by the Chairman of the Treasury Committee.
	We were encouraged by Sir Michael's responses, and as a result, we recommend him to the House. I want to touch on the challenges that he will face. Public confidence in statistics in the United Kingdom is low. That may be because of the perception that statistics can be spun by Ministers, and a key challenge for Sir Michael will be to work to overcome this perception and to monitor the arrangements that give rise to it. When questioned by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), Sir Michael was very clear that he wanted pre-release times to be shorter. Furthermore, he wished that that had been a decision of the board, and the Committee agreed with those comments. We look forward to him chairing the board in the professional manner he has shown in his life as a civil servant, and as an academic, and also, at times, we hope that he makes constructive criticism of the Government when we feel that they have got it wrong.
	We know that the Government have given ground on pre-release times, such as the 24-hour notice period on national statistics, but that is still out of line with international comparisons and the United Nations recommendation. Indeed, the Select Committee visited the Republic of Ireland a few months ago, when we examined arrangements there for statistics and pre-release. The Act that governs that in the Republic of Ireland dates back to 1993, which shows how far behind we were. We have come far, but there is still a distance to go on pre-released statistics.
	I remember an opinion poll that suggested that only 17 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom have confidence in official statistics. That is bad for statistics, politicians and the democratic process. It is important to improve the position and I hope that Sir Michael's appointment will help.
	Sir Michael will face an organisational challenge. It has already been said that, earlier this week, we published a report arising from an inquiry by the Sub-Committee, which is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. It characterised the Office for National Statistics as an organisation that is under intense pressure. I trust that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will tackle some of those pressures before 1 April 2008. In doing that, I hope that she will work closely with Sir Michael as shadow chair.
	The combined task that Sir Michael faces will make demands on his time. He has been appointed as a non-executive chairman to work a three-day week. We questioned him about his other commitments, most notably his post as head of St. John's college, Oxford. He told us that he would work three days at St. John's college and three days at the Statistics Board. That is a six-day week and we forcefully suggested to him that his primary responsibility should be his Statistics Board job. He took that point on board. The position as chair of the Statistics Board must be his primary commitment.
	Let me offer some thoughts on the new process. In the case that we are considering, a pre-appointment Select Committee hearing and a debate on the Floor of the House have taken place. However, the Government's report on the new constitutional arrangements does not make clear the posts that are up for pre-appointment hearing and those that are not. The Government have much work to do on that.
	I welcome the Government's proposals that Select Committee hearings should precede formal appointments, but the case for motions and debates on non-controversial appointments is not clear. Taking the two points together, along with the Government's argument that Select Committees' views should be non-binding, the Committee proposes that debates and votes in the House should be reserved for cases in which Select Committees reach an adverse opinion on a Government nominee. We have not reached such an opinion about Sir Michael's appointment, which we welcome and support.
	We are glad to support the motion and we wish Sir Michael and his colleagues every success on the Statistics Board in the next few years, with a view to improving confidence in statistics and thereby in the democratic process.

Julia Goldsworthy: Although I have not had the privilege of serving on the Treasury Select Committee, I am not here to break the consensus on endorsing Sir Michael Scholar and confirming him as Government nominee to the post of chair of the Statistics Board. The right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall) was right to highlight Sir Michael's experience and to question him strongly about his work load and his independence. The Committee was right to do that forcefully, and its members have shown themselves to be independent in reaching their conclusions.
	The process has been worth while and I would like to dwell on that. It is new and welcome. It is excellent to have the opportunity not only to hold a pre-appointment hearing but to debate and potentially vote on the nomination on the Floor of the House. My question to the Exchequer Secretary focuses on the role of the Select Committee and the interaction with the process up until now, with the passage of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill through Parliament. We know now that departmental responsibility for the issue will fall not to the Treasury, but to the Cabinet Office. Although I appreciate that that was not the basis on which the Bill was planned and went through, and the appointment process started, that was known when the Treasury contacted the right hon. Gentleman and asked for a pre-appointment hearing for Sir Michael.
	Given the compressed timetable and the fact that it was known then that it was more than likely that responsibility would be transferred to the Cabinet Office, would it have been appropriate for the Committee to have been involved with the relevant experience and expertise in the Cabinet Office rather than in the Treasury? That would have reflected how things were going to be, rather than the process thus far. My question for the Exchequer Secretary is: did the Treasury consider such a move? Perhaps the Select Committee on Public Administration could have undertaken a role similar to that undertaken by the Treasury Committee.
	I conclude by echoing the right hon. Gentleman's comments, in welcoming the opportunity that we have had and in asking the Exchequer Secretary how she and other Ministers will consider extending the process to other high-profile appointments. This case might be the only instance in which we have such an opportunity. We have heard concerns expressed about how compressed the process was, but there is cross-support for the principle, so I very much hope that the Government will consider extending it to other posts of such importance and profile.

Fiona Mactaggart: I, too, join the chorus of congratulation of the Government on initiating the process. It is the kind of thing for which I have argued for years and it is a pleasure to be part of a Parliament that is implementing it. I also congratulate the Treasury Committee on doing a pretty okay job at almost no notice. It came across clearly from the questions that the Committee asked Sir Michael Scholar, from his experience and his commitment to independence, and from the interview process as a whole that the appointment was appropriate.
	I want to focus on one aspect of the questioning that could have been fuller. I do not say that in a critical tone, because the Committee did a good job at short notice, as well as doing an exposition on how the process should go forward, which is also helpful. I want to focus on Sir Michael's post-appointment actions. There was a focus on the appointment of other board members, which was quite appropriate, but in my judgment we are making a mistake—hon. Members will have heard me say this before—about what the source of the lack of public confidence in statistics is.
	It is true that one source of the lack of public confidence in statistics is a sense that politicians get hold of them first and might manipulate them. However, there is a much more important source, which is when those statistics are just plain wrong. We have to address that issue seriously—indeed, there is an Adjournment debate on the subject today. I am profoundly concerned that we are not confronting certain weaknesses sufficiently strongly. We all know that they are not deliberate weaknesses—the Office for National Statistics is not trying to get the census and inter-census estimates of population wrong—but we are also confronted with overwhelming evidence that things are not right.
	One of the risks of that public discourse is that the Committee goes with the flow when people say, "Oh well, the source of the lack of public confidence in statistics is spin". I believe that there is another very important source of the lack of public confidence in statistics—

Michael Fallon: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) too deeply into the issue of the census. She described our report as "pretty okay", so I shall simply congratulate her on a pretty okay speech. She might like to know, however, that the Treasury Select Committee will address the preparations for the new census, as it did for the previous census, at some point in the next year.
	I want to speak briefly in support of the motion. I welcome the new procedure, which allows the House to express its view. Should the motion be passed, it will also enable the new chairman of the board to begin the task of rebuilding public confidence in statistics knowing that he has the full support of Members on both sides of the House. The Treasury Committee, which looked in detail at Sir Michael Scholar's appointment, supports him and has confidence in him. We questioned him at length, and then discussed his candidacy at length, before making the recommendation that is now before the House.
	The fact that the new procedure has been introduced for this appointment underlines the importance of the chairmanship of the new, independent Statistics Board. It is an important post. I believe that the chairman of the Statistics Board should become a big public figure, who is able not only to lead one of the major public agencies but to give the public back their confidence in the statistics that it provides. That matters because the new board is now, finally, at the end of the legislation, independent of Ministers in all respects bar one. The chairman of the board will therefore be closer to Parliament than any of his predecessors.
	That also matters because he takes over the chairmanship of the board at a time when the Office for National Statistics is in transition. It is becoming the Statistics Board; it is relocating to Newport; it is facing formidable challenges; and, as we were reminded earlier, it is preparing for the census in 2011. As the Treasury Committee mentioned in a separate report earlier this week, it also faces a series of challenges and is under enormous pressure from the Government in terms of efficiency savings—costs and headcount reductions—which could put at risk services on which key users such as the Treasury itself, the banks, the City and business so desperately rely.
	It was the permanent secretary who, in giving evidence to our Committee, defended the efficiency targets. When he was asked why he was piling them on top of the relocation, on top of the preparation for the census, on top of legislative preparations to transfer the ONS to the Statistics Board, he replied that the target-setting process was
	"like trying to solve a set of simultaneous equations".
	I have to say that this is not an academic exercise. We need a strong Office for National Statistics producing accurate and timely statistics, which are a vital public service and a cornerstone of our democracy. The new chairman therefore needs quickly to get a grip of the challenges faced by the ONS and ensure that management is fully supported and that priorities are properly set before the ONS is overwhelmed. He must ensure that it is ready for the challenges that lie ahead—not least the preparation for the 2011 census.
	My final point is to ask whether Sir Michael Scholar is the right man. He is a former Treasury mandarin and I note that former Treasury mandarins never quite retire—not when new quangos are being set up! I am not convinced, however, that when it comes to applying for those particular jobs, Treasury mandarins should necessarily be discriminated against just because they are Treasury mandarins. In any event, there is not much evidence that they are being discriminated against. Given their success in securing the glittering prizes, I would make one suggestion. It might be an idea for the current permanent secretary not necessarily to sit on each of these selection panels when he is so likely to appear on the other side of the table in future.
	Two main considerations apply to Sir Michael's candidacy, the first of which is independence. Will he be sufficiently independent? The Treasury Committee was fully satisfied on that point. It is already clear, one day after the Government asked the House to send an amendment back to the Lords, that Sir Michael Scholar disagrees with the Government. He believes that pre-release should be a matter for the board and not for Ministers to determine. Within 48 hours of the Prime Minister's recommendation that the maximum time for pre-release should be 24 hours, he also disagreed with that. He said that he would much prefer less time. The all-party Treasury Committee, comprising six former Ministers, recommended only three hours. I hope that Sir Michael follows that independence through and makes vigorous comments on the arrangements for pre-release access when the Government publish them in draft. When it comes to the 12-month review of those arrangements, I hope that the Statistics Board under his chairmanship will make it very clear what it would prefer.
	The only remaining issue was the time commitment involved in the job. As the Chairman of our Committee has already said, the post is three days a week. Sir Michael is already committed as president of a busy Oxford college and he has a non-executive directorship, all of which seem to add up to six days a week. I simply draw the House's attention to our recommendation that the chairmanship must be his primary commitment. He must be here in London or out in Newport at the office rather than in the garden or at the organ or in the cellars of St. John's college, Oxford. Indeed, we expect him not only to fulfil his commitment at the London and Newport offices but to be here as well, answering questions in Parliament. He should make himself fully accountable for the work of the Statistics Board to whatever new Committee takes on the scrutiny function that my sub-Committee has exercised for so long.

Michael Fallon: What is important is that from now on that person makes himself fully accountable to Parliament and appears before whatever new Committee takes on the function that my Sub-Committee has exercised for so long.
	I hope that the House will support the motion and in so doing wish Sir Michael Scholar well.

Paul Flynn: The motion proves that if a Member is in the House long enough, all decisions are ultimately reversed. I recall vividly in 1988 when Margaret Thatcher transferred the then Central Statistical Office, which was under the control of the Cabinet Office, to the Treasury, to the great chagrin of many of the statisticians in my constituency who were concerned that it had gone to the Department with the greatest vested interest in fiddling the figures. They were worried about their positions and that the value of their work would be undermined by ministerial interference. I was told in a letter from Margaret Thatcher that that was an unworthy thought. Unworthy though it may have been, we are now moving the organisation back. There is great merit in that.
	I welcome the procedure. It is innovative and has been called for by many people with an interest in our parliamentary processes. It is a major reform. As Andrew Dilnot said, the Statistics and Registration Service Bill might be the most important Bill in this Parliament—at least equivalent to the legislation that gave independence to the Bank of England.
	We welcome the appointment of Sir Michael. He seems eminently qualified. He is of robust independence. As we heard, he is not entirely in tune with Government thinking on the release of information. We made the point many times that the Government have been very reasonable and generous in taking on almost every amendment produced in this House and elsewhere to improve the Bill to ensure that the service has independence and authority.
	I have just one small point to raise. Although I was happy to vote with the Government the other day, there is a lingering doubt, and that is a shame. The Minister is visiting the ONS in my constituency tomorrow, which is a matter of joy both to her and to my constituents. I hope that she will take on the unfortunate attempt to reduce the enthusiasm for the move to the Newport. Some people do not seem to accept with the enthusiasm that they should the Government's offer to give them a passport out of Pimlico to the joys of Newport and its hinterland. I hope that tomorrow she will see the many people who came from the south-east of England—from the Patent Office, the Prison Service, the UK Passport Service and the ONS—with grave doubts about whether they would settle well in Newport and who have found themselves much happier in so many ways with the facilities and the quality of life there. They will be very happy to hear about the appointment and that the innovation has been used for the first time for the ONS in its new headquarters in the city of Newport.

Peter Bottomley: I approve of the nomination of Sir Michael Scholar. I disapprove of combining the commission and the statistics organisation, but that has been decided. I approved of the Government setting up the Statistics Commission, which was a better way of doing things. I thought that combining the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Central Statistical Office was probably a mistake 11 years ago or so.
	What Sir Michael says should be agreed by all—good statistics is like sound money or clean water. He describes it as an absolute necessity. I hope that the Government will use his advice to decide which statisticians sign the statisticians code and which do not. There has been some lack of clarity on that. All statisticians should sign up to the code, whether they are employed centrally or are departmental statisticians. I should declare that had I worked harder at university I would probably have joined the civil service like my brother, my father and our grandfather, and that I might therefore have been approaching this matter from the other end.
	One remaining doubt raised about Sir Michael Scholar is whether he can be president of St. John's, Cambridge and— [Interruption.] I meant to say Oxford.

Angela Eagle: I am glad that there has been a widespread cross-party welcome for Sir Michael's appointment and this innovative process; it is the first of its kind, but I am sure that there will be many others.
	The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) has taken his life in his hands by mixing up St. John's, Cambridge, with St. John's, Oxford. As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) pointed out, St. John's, Oxford, has a large cellar. As an ex-member of that college, I heard about the cellar but I never gained access to it while I was there. I hope that Sir Michael has not discovered the keys and that he can concentrate on what is widely recognised as an important job, which he is eminently qualified to do.
	We are entering a new era. The Office for National Statistics is preparing for independence, and that has been widely welcomed in all parts of the House. The Statistics and Registration Service Bill might well be one of the most important Bills for many years. I am sure that the system for pre-release and other issues will evolve; the Bill has been created and subsequently changed in ways that will assist that to happen. I can certainly give the House an undertaking that I, as Exchequer Secretary, will work closely with Sir Michael and the shadow board when it comes into existence in the run-up to April next year when the ONS will celebrate its independence.
	Until that happens—or until the responsibility for the ONS transfers to the Cabinet Office, if that happens earlier—the Treasury Committee has undertaken the pre-appointment hearings. It is currently the best qualified Committee to do so because it has taken a close interest in statistics over the past 10 years, although—as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) hinted—other Committees of this House might in future be in a better position to perform such tasks. I congratulate it on the robust job it has done. It has produced recommendations of support in quick time, as a result of the innovative nature of the procedure used and the closeness of the recess. Given the constraints that we have had to deal with, a good job has been done all round.

Theresa May: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend, but also say that the point is that the Committee on Selection has been unable to meet to consider this name and to put it before the House? I understand that that is most unusual. It is not, presumably, as if the Government did not know that they wanted to put this motion before the House in sufficient time for the Selection Committee to be called to meet to consider the name.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for being generous in giving way. She is making several presumptions about decisions that are rightly decisions for the Committee rather than for the House. Would it not be in order for the Committee on Home Affairs to meet and choose to elect another from among its membership to be Chairman or acting Chairman, pending the vacancy created by the promotion of the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills being filled? The Committee could have continued to operate without this motion.

Harriet Harman: I understood that to be the question to me, and I undertook to answer it in writing. We had a helpful additional bit of information from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I did not think that I was asked about that. I understood the question as the hon. Gentleman did, and I will ask what the position is.
	When the Committee has a new Chairman in place, it can agree a work programme for the period during and after the summer recess. It clearly makes sense for the Committee to choose a Chairman and to go on to consider its programme, with the correct membership and not with a Minister being technically a member of the Committee. Without the change in membership necessitated by my right hon. Friend's joining the Cabinet, the Committee will not have its correct membership, as it heads into the summer recess. The motion provides only for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to become a member of the Committee. It is for the Committee then to choose its Chairman.

Simon Hughes: What started as a squall is becoming a storm. It is important for the Leader of the House to realise that this could be a serious matter if it goes wrong, and it would reflect badly on the House. It is important that we pause, that the right hon. and learned Lady reflects, and that in the end she accepts the growing, strongly expressed view that the motion should be withdrawn before we vote on it.
	There are Standing Orders that govern us, which have been agreed by the House. The Standing Orders governing Select Committees include No. 121(2), which states:
	"No motion shall be made for the nomination of members of select committees appointed under the standing orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary standing order), or for their discharge, unless"—
	there are two conditions—
	" (a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
	 (b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the chairman or another member of the committee."
	The Leader of the House is seeking our agreement to dispense with two of the rules we normally impose on ourselves. The first is that there are at least two days' notice, for very good reason, so that any Member with an interest in the matter can be present, can speak if they want to and can vote if they want to. That is not possible if the motion appears on the day of the vote. There are some colleagues who, for perfectly good family reasons, will not be here today because they may have started their holiday with their children, or whatever.
	The second rule is that the motion be brought by somebody who acts independently on behalf of the Committee of Selection—the Chairman or another Member on behalf of the Committee of Selection. That is not happening. The motion does not come from the body that meets every week, or more often if necessary, to choose Members for all Committees. It is coming from the Leader of the House. I have not heard a single argument, with respect to her, that justifies either of those breaches of the rules.
	Let me explain to the right hon. and learned Lady why the arguments that she has made do not wash and do not work. The Prime Minister, having had 10 years to prepare, was well equipped to make early announcements of his Cabinet and his Ministers. Every Minister—Cabinet Minister, Minister of State and Under-Secretary of State—was appointed by the end of the first full week of his term of office. That took us to the end of the first week of July. No other appointments have been made since then, except in the other place, where there were a couple of slightly belated take-ups of appointments of the more controversial nominees.
	Those who were appointed to the Cabinet immediately stopped functioning in their Select Committee. All who were appointed gave up that function. The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), gave up serving on the Home Affairs Committee then. The Home Affairs Committee has not stopped work, however, since the change of Prime Minister or Government. It has continued to sit, to meet, to take evidence and to interrogate people. Indeed, the new Home Secretary appeared before it yesterday.
	The Committee has 13 serving members, who are described in the report published on 10 July. They are the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), for Burton (Mrs. Dean), for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), and for Dover (Gwyn Prosser), my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), and the hon. Members for Reading, West (Martin Salter), for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The report then says:
	"The following members were also members of the committee during the inquiry:
	Mr. John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton, Itchen) (former Chairman)
	Mr. Richard Spring MP (Conservative, West Suffolk)".
	The implication is that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen gave up being Chairman, as we had widely and generally understood, and as would usually have been expected. The implication is also that he has given up serving on the Committee. He may not have been formally discharged, but he has certainly ceased to serve.
	The Committee, however, has carried on its work. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has long had a reputation for an interest in home affairs matters, has been elected as its acting Chairman. Twelve other colleagues, of whom seven are Labour colleagues from the party that, as agreed through the usual channels, produces the Chairman, would be available and able to serve were the hon. Member for Walsall, North unable to do so. They, too, have long had reputations for interest in and commitment to the subject. There are four Conservative colleagues with such an interest and long service and two of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is a long-serving member of the Committee. There is no reason in the world why it has to have another member in order to do any work between now and October. At the moment, it has not even fixed a programme of meetings for the recess. It has one meeting fixed, for tomorrow, to elect a Chairman, but no others.
	We are being asked to nominate somebody in place of somebody who has left for a meeting to elect a Chairman and nothing else. That is complete nonsense. It is an abuse of the system and of the processes of the House, and it would be so even were the nomination not controversial—which it is, as it happens. People can take different views about the merits of the nomination of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). That makes it important that the House has an opportunity to reflect on the matter. I have had representations to the effect that it is an inappropriate choice, although that is not a view that I had formed personally. I was asked to ask the Leader of the House if it was being done so that the right hon. Gentleman could be the new Chairman. Is that the Government's plan? [Hon. Members: "It is."] Implicitly, that is what was said, and my understanding is that that is precisely the plan. The Leader of the House said that Select Committee business is not for her, but she needs to be honest with us as to whether the Government's plan—not hers—is that the new nominee should be the Chairman.
	In any case, we have plenty of opportunity to debate whether the right hon. Gentleman should be a member on the first day back in October, or any other day. I hope that the Leader of the House realises that it would seriously undermine the authority, competence and service of colleagues on the Committee were she to tell the House to say that the hon. Member for Walsall, North and the other hon. Ladies and Gentlemen from various parties were not competent to carry on the business of the Home Affairs Committee between now and October. That is not an acceptable proposition. They have served on the Committee, they have produced very good reports, and they were well served as Chairman by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, who gave it a very good reputation and profile and whom I commend and thank for his service. He is widely admired and respected. However, it is nonsense to argue that nobody else in the list of current members, including the hon. Member for Walsall, North, is competent or capable to carry out its business, whatever it may be—at the moment, there is none—over the next two and half months.

David Heath: Can my hon. Friend conceive of any business that the Committee might wish to contract between now and October that would be more serious than the first opportunity to hear from the new Home Secretary, as it did yesterday, and to quiz her on the work of the Home Office over the next year? That is clearly a serious bit of business, not a trivial matter, yet it was perfectly competently handled by the Committee as it stands.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend makes that point well and strongly. The Committee is served by very good officers, who are well established in their posts. It clearly decided that it did not need to wait for a change of personnel to get on with its work after the change of Government. It clearly decided that it wanted to address the major issues on its agenda, and it did so. It has not been prevented from doing so, and I am sure that it can do so during the first week back or the recess. It has the power to decide to meet in the recess, and to call people in front of it at that time. It is perfectly competent as a Select Committee, and it is able to continue.
	I hope that the Leader of the House understands that if she is to go on as she started—she has done extremely well in all her appearances so far—she has to win the confidence of the House by seeking to reflect its will. To depart from that style and decide to impose by a whipped vote a change to Standing Orders in two major respects, on the last-but-one day of the summer term, in order to force through a controversial change of personnel in one of the most important Select Committees, will do great discredit to the prospective, positive reforming work that she and her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have begun.
	I would like to make two last points. The Select Committee has been put in a very difficult position, as has the hon. Member for Walsall, North. I am sorry that he is in that position; it is not his fault at all. I am sure that if people had thought about the matter and been asked about it, they would have realised that there was another way forward, which was to delay matters.
	Lastly, there has been no answer to this question. If the Government say that it is a matter of timing, why did they not manage the process in such a way that the Committee of Selection could have met to conduct its business last week? It could have met last week, Monday, yesterday, or this morning. It did not meet at any of those times. It was standing by, ready to meet, and willing and able to assist.
	The Government have made a mess of this. It is their mistake, their maladministration and their incompetence. On behalf of all of us—party Members and independent colleagues—I say that we cannot let the House be steamrollered by a completely inappropriate motion on the last-but-one day of term. I hope that the right hon. And learned Lady realises that it is in everyone's interests if she accepts that the motion can be withdrawn. Let the Home Affairs Committee do its work, and we can come back to the matter after the summer break, when we are all fresh and, if I may say so, not driven to be so bad tempered.

George Young: The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a powerful speech, to which I want to add a relatively brief footnote. What the Leader of the House is doing is unprecedented and unnecessary. The Committee of Selection was established at the beginning of this Parliament and its job is to meet every week, to nominate people to Public Bill Committees, Select Committees, Committees on statutory instruments and Committees on private Bills. At the beginning of the Parliament, we nominated members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and a motion was approved by the House. Since then, we have met weekly under the impartial and efficient chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna).
	Of course, there are occasions when we have to make changes to Select Committees. People get promoted, become Ministers or their preferences may change. When that happens, we meet on a Wednesday, and the changes are proposed in the name of the hon. Lady. They appear on the Order Paper, the House has an opportunity to reflect on them, and if it wishes, to object. We have met every Wednesday since the last reshuffle. As has been said during the debate, we were provisionally scheduled to meet this Monday, when we could have approved any changes to Select Committees. The names would then have appeared in the hon. Lady's name on the Order Paper today, in the normal way, and we would not have this problem. We were informed on Monday that the Government had no business, and the meeting was cancelled. We could have met today; we normally meet at 4.45 pm on a Wednesday, but there was no business scheduled for the Committee of Selection today, so we did not meet.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey correctly read out the Standing Orders, which protect the House. A motion has to have at least two sitting days' notice and it has to be made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman, or another member of the Committee. Suspending Standing Orders requires a much better reason than anything that we have heard so far in the debate. The Home Affairs Committee has been meeting under the chairmanship of a senior and experienced Member. I doubt whether it planned to do much during the summer recess. If it had planned any work, it could have continued to meet under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
	Why does it matter? It matters because it is up to the House of Commons, not the Executive, to nominate Members to serve on Select Committees. The Prime Minister has spoken of his wish to empower the House of Commons and enable us better to hold the Government to account. Yet one of his first acts is to use a procedure, for which no precedent has been found, to appoint a nominee of the Executive to a Select Committee instead of a nominee of a Select Committee. Let me make it clear that my comments are no way motivated by disapproval of either the right hon. Member who is leaving the Select Committee or the right hon. Member who is nominated. My objections are principled ones to the procedure that is being used.
	Our Standing Orders provide an acceptable route that should be used to move people from and on to Select Committees. No real reason has been given for not using that procedure in the case that we are considering. The best thing that the Leader of the House can do is stand up when I sit down and say that she plans to withdraw the motion to allow the Committee of Selection to meet on 8 or 9 October and the names to go through in the normal way. If she does not do that, I fear that the debate will continue for some time and, unless we get far better reasons than I have heard so far, I am minded to advise the House to reject the motion.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is greatly respected in the House for his position as Chairman of an important disciplinary Committee and for his experience as a distinguished Back Bencher and a former Minister. The Leader of the House should listen when someone such as my right hon. Friend raises considerable concerns about the procedure that the Government are adopting.
	During the former Prime Minister's final Question Time, which was a memorable occasion, he said in reply to my question,
	"I like the hon. Gentleman."—[ Official Report, 27 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 331.]
	I say that with some pride—some people may ask why, but I took the comment with pride. He then went on to say other things— [Interruption.] They were all quite complimentary. I hope that it does not embarrass the right hon. and learned Lady when I say that I like her. We have held several discussions since she became Leader of the House and I have greatly appreciated those conversations. I know that she intends to be committed to the House, its independence and integrity. However, by pressing the motion, she somewhat undermines the credibility of the assurances that she has given me.
	I speak as someone who now takes a huge interest in the procedures of the House. I am prepared to admit from the Back Benches that one of my raisons d'être in the House is not only to continue to represent my constituency of Macclesfield and the interests of the country, but to stand up for the integrity and independence of the House of Commons in trying to hold the Government of the day to account. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire made an excellent speech, and from the Conservative Benches I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on the clarity of the case that he advanced in advising the right hon. and learned Lady to withdraw the motion.
	May I sincerely ask the right hon. and learned Lady a question that I put in an intervention, but to which she did not respond? In moving the motion to put the right hon. Member for Leicester, East on the Home Affairs Committee, is it not the Government's intention that he should be the Chairman of that Committee? She did not answer that question earlier, perhaps because in a way she did not want to. She is quite right: it is not for the House of Commons as a whole to dictate who should be the Chairman of that Committee. That is the responsibility of the Home Affairs Committee. In an earlier intervention I made certain observations about the individual being put forward. I was not making any—how shall I put it?—subjective judgments on the matter, but the right hon. Gentleman had featured in a report by an important Committee of the House. Therefore, it ill behoves the Leader of the House to bring forward an exceptional motion, to which, as I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has established, there is no precedent.
	The Chairman of the Committee of Selection chairs that Committee ably and with distinction. I have considerable respect for her as a representative for a constituency in Scotland—I am not going to say her constituency, as I fear that I would not get my tongue round all the names in it. I know her well. She served as a positive and involved member of the Select Committee on Procedure, and I respect her view and the role that she plays in the House. I hope that the Chairman of the Selection Committee will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I find it interesting that she is not involved in the motion. I accept that the motion is unique, in so far as an important Standing Order that provides safeguards to the House is being ignored.

John Bercow: Given that we have been advised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire that the Selection Committee was told on Monday that there was no business for it to consider, does my hon. Friend think that the Government always intended to circumvent that Committee, or is it his supposition that the idea of proposing the right hon. Member for Leicester, East as a member of the Home Affairs Committee has occurred to them only since Monday?

Nicholas Winterton: I suppose that we have to accept at face value what the Leader of House has told us—namely that on Monday, and apparently on Tuesday, the Government had no business to put to the Selection Committee. Bearing in mind the fact that, as we have heard from a number of contributors to this debate, the Prime Minister formed his Government by appointing Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries some time ago, it seems strange that the Leader of the House, for whom—I repeat—I have considerable affection and regard, should not have put the motion to the House until the penultimate day before we break for the summer recess and that the Government should be ignoring the provisions of Standing Order No. 121 on the nomination of Select Committees.
	It has been made clear, not least by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, that there is no reason why the Select Committee should not continue under the very positive and able acting chairmanship of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Nobody has a better reputation for outspokenness and integrity than he does. I would have thought that the Home Affairs Committee could continue its work under his chairmanship, but no contributor to the debate has told the House what work the Committee is to undertake between now and 8 October when the House meets again following the summer recess. I am going to throw in the following, as it has not been mentioned so far: if the House wants value for money, it appears strange to appoint a Chairman who will be paid the full rate as a Select Committee Chairman when he and his Committee are to do very little, if anything, on behalf of the House or the people of this country for the next two and a half months.
	I feel very deeply about this matter, because the Standing Orders of the House are a safeguard for the House in standing up to the power and influence of the Executive. We are being asked to suspend Standing Orders, and that is an abuse of the House, as I said to the Leader of the House in a point of order before the debate began. May I make a plea, to add to the requests made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey? If the right hon. and learned Lady is serious about being even-handed in her role as Leader of the House and about representing the interests of all Members of the House and not just her own political party, she will take our request to withdraw the motion very seriously indeed. I hope that she will accede to that request.
	I am not going to refer to the right hon. and learned Lady's attainment in due course of the chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee, but I look forward to working with her—I say that with total commitment and sincerity and sometimes against the wishes of some of my colleagues—because I fervently believe in the integrity and sovereignty of the House of Commons in dealing with the Executive. Will she therefore represent the interests of the House by withdrawing the motion?

Richard Shepherd: When the Leader of the House reads her speech on this matter, I think that she will find it rather distressing. It contained a number of contentions, some of which seemed straightforwardly contradictory. I do not wish to beat her around the head with a broom, but one of her propositions was that it was inappropriate to have a Cabinet Minister on a Select Committee, yet she herself is now going to be nominated by a member of the Executive to sit on a Select Committee. The sheer inconsistency of that is remarkable. It leaps out at us: Home Affairs, Ms. Harriet Harman, the Leader of the House. A member of the Executive—a member of the Cabinet—is directing to the House's attention a particular Member whom they wish to become a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Indeed, most of us suppose that it is the intention that the nominee should become Chairman of that Committee. I do not think for one moment that the matter was allowed to go to the Committee of Selection. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and we have also heard and read out the Standing Orders. No one in the House can be unaware of the Standing Orders; they are quite clear. Yet the proper process by which we arrive at these decisions has been bypassed and neutered.
	I know that there is often a guiding hand behind what we do, but this is not a guiding hand out of sight. This has been brought right into the Chamber and it amounts to an assertion of Executive power over us. In fact, it means setting aside the very position of the Committee of Selection. This has been exhaustively argued and pointed out by a member of that Committee. Indeed, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is in his place.
	Like many others, I am puzzled about the "urgent work" that requires the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to be appointed in this way on this day. It is simply an assertion. There is no evidence of a programme in position; the Committee is functioning properly; a report is demonstrably coming up.
	Let me give a cheer for my neighbour, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I have noted the work that he has done over many years. His assiduity and commitment to the Home Affairs Committee is phenomenal. He is probably the most regular attender of Home Affairs questions in the whole House—dismissed by the Executive. That is not good enough. If the Committee of Selection were to override all the Whips sitting on it and choose another Member, that would also be inappropriate. That is why we are fighting the inclusion of this name on the Order Paper. It is not right; we all know it is not right.
	The absurdity of placing the Leader of the House in the position of arguing an unarguable case with contradictory reasoning actually diminishes her in carrying out her vital role. We who believe in the House of Commons know full well that the role of Leader of the House is a difficult one. The occupier of the position is not only the representative of the Government, but the representative of the House of Commons to the Government. That is the classical definition and we shall return to this issue later today when we debate another motion on the Floor of the House. That will also be contested.
	What I am saying is that we all know that this is wrong. It will not do. Furthermore, the arguments adduced for this proposition are demonstrably contradictory. I think that this House should confidently ask—and expect to be heard by the Leader of the House—for this motion to be withdrawn. That is what I ask of the Leader of the House. The credibility of our system of managing this House is at stake. There is a balance between ordinary Members and the Executive, but this is a manifestation of total Executive dominance. That is what sticks in the craw of many of us.

Harriet Harman: In response to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I should say that the Modernisation Committee is different from other Select Committees. It has always been chaired by the Leader of the House— [Interruption.] That always has been the case by custom and practice.
	Departmental Select Committees are never chaired by Cabinet Ministers. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna) that this is an exceptional process, and it is not one that I would want to hurry into on any future occasion. I accept that it is exceptional.
	We have arrived at this position because the Home Affairs Committee has lost its Chair because of his appointment to the Cabinet. That is not the case with other Select Committees. I resent the suggestion that, by proposing a name for the House to vote on in substitution for another hon. Member, I am somehow questioning the competence or ability of all the other members of the Committee. I am most certainly not doing that. Far from it—least of all with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). That is not my point. I am not saying that they are not all competent and able. Of course they are.
	What I am fundamentally proposing is that the House moves a currently serving member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is, to serve as a member of the Home Affairs Committee. If he is suitable, as we believe he is, for the House to vote him on to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, he is suitable also for the House to vote him on to the Home Affairs Committee.
	I do not accept either that Select Committees do nothing over the summer. Whether or not they do nothing is a matter for them. I know that many of them are extremely active over the summer.
	I want to correct something. I said that the Prime Minister had to deal with the appointment of Cabinet Ministers, junior Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. I should have added Parliamentary Private Secretaries as well, because those are subsequent to the appointment of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. It was not until it was clear who were going to be Parliamentary Private Secretaries and to what Department they would be allocated that we were in a position to know who might be available for the Home Affairs Committee.

Richard Bacon: The Leader of the House said that the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) will be moved from the Constitutional Affairs Committee to the Home Affairs Committee. Where on the Order Paper does it say that he will be moved from that Committee?

Harriet Harman: What I perhaps should say is that my right hon. Friend has been voted by this House on to the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Clearly, the House regarded him as suitable for that. I am asking the House to consider him—  [Interruption.] I presume he stays on both Committees unless he is removed from the Constitutional Affairs Committee. I do not, however, accept the argument that Select Committees have nothing to do over the summer.
	I was asked about the salary of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I am advised that the House's resolution of 2003, which deals with pay for Select Committee Chairs, provides that the salary ceases if the member becomes a Minister. No Select Committee salary will have been paid to my right hon. Friend since his appointment to the Cabinet.
	I have listened to what Members have said, and I register the vehemence with which they have stated their argument; however, I considered that argument before I brought the motion before the House. I acknowledge that this is an exceptional procedure, and that it would have been better if there had been time for the matter to go before the Committee of Selection. It would be easier on me if I could simply withdraw the motion as a new and persuasive argument had caused me to change my mind, but I anticipated the argument that has been made.
	I did not anticipate, however, that Members would think that there was a conspiracy behind the motion; I had hoped that they would accept that there was a question to do with timing as we are approaching the end of the Session. As Leader of the House, I must listen to the arguments that are made and work out whether it is right to put a motion to the House. In effect, this motion places a current member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee on to the Home Affairs Committee. We must make sure that we do not fail to see the wood for the trees; we must understand that that is the subject that we would vote on.

Harriet Harman: No. I have given way a number of times.
	I come to be Leader of the House at a time when there are a great many changes strengthening the position of the House, and I fully support them. We have had independent scrutiny of appointments for the first time; we will have topical debates so that Members can swiftly ask questions of Ministers on behalf of their constituents; more Bills have been published in draft; we have had pre-legislative scrutiny; we are moving on to having post-legislative scrutiny; and we are publishing for the first time the draft legislative programme.
	The work of the Leader of the House is important, and I stand by my commitment to do it in the interests of the House. However, it is also important to keep a sense of proportion. This motion is in order. It moves the Member concerned from the Constitutional Affairs Committee to the Home Affairs Committee.  [Interruption.] Let me say that in another way; it takes a Member who has already been voted by the House on to the Constitutional Affairs Committee and places him on the Home Affairs Committee. The motion is in order, and I suggest that the House votes on it.

Harriet Harman: This motion is to keep up to date the system of Select Committee scrutiny of the Executive. Today's business has, of course, been presented in the right order, but it would probably have been better to deal with the overall picture by debating this motion before discussing the specific case of the Home Affairs Committee. However, I shall move swiftly on.
	Before I go on to explain some of the motions in detail, I would like to set them in the context of the programme of reform announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 3 July, and in the Green Paper "Governance of Britain".
	The Green Paper sets out proposals to give stronger accountability of the Government to Parliament, to assure greater engagement between Parliament and the people and between the Government and the people, and to build strong Cabinet Government. These motions reflect one of those central themes—promoting the holding of Government to account.
	Select Committees are one of the House's key tools for holding Government and Ministers to account. Since 1979, the basis of the Select Committee structure has been that there should be a Committee to monitor the work of each principal Department. That was introduced by the then Conservative Government, and supported on all sides. The structure is enshrined in Standing Order No. 152, which is updated from time to time.
	In recent months, with the establishment of the Ministry of Justice out of the former Department for Constitutional Affairs, and the more recent establishment of three new Departments, we have seen significant developments that require a number of changes to that Standing Order. Accordingly, the motion provides for new Select Committees to cover the following Departments: Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Children, Schools and Families, Justice, and Innovation, Universities and Skills. Membership numbers for each Committee are as set out in the motion.
	Procedural provisions are included in the motion to allow continuity between the work of old Select Committees and the new ones, so far as is possible. The new Justice Committee continues the work of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, albeit enlarged in size and with a wider remit. The other Committees are, procedurally, new Committees.
	I want to say something about the importance of science and technology. Overall responsibility in Government for science and innovation issues was located in the Department of Trade and Industry until the recent machinery of government changes; it now forms a core part of the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. There has been great concern in the science community—I have myself received a number of representations from science organisations—about ensuring the continuance of the work of the Science and Technology Committee, so that science issues, particularly ones that cut across Departments, will continue to be properly scrutinised. I have received representations from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), Chair of the Science and Technology Committee; Professor Broers, Chair of the Lords Science and Technology Committee; the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK; the Chemical Industries Association; Professor Derek Burke, who was special adviser to the Science and Technology Committee between 1995 and 2001; the Genetic Interest Group; the Royal Society; the Institute of Biology; the Association of Medical Research Charities and many more. I have considered those representations carefully, and the proposal before the House aims to accommodate the key concerns effectively.
	We propose that the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee, instead of being a Committee of 11 members—as it would otherwise have been—should have 14 members. If the Committee chooses to have a Sub-Committee covering science and technology issues, it will be able to operate that Sub-Committee, in effect, as a successor to the current Science and Technology Committee.

Theresa May: Select Committees do an extremely important job in holding the Government to account. Indeed, we should be grateful to all those who serve on Select Committees for the important work that they do. Their work brings focus to particular themes and aspects of legislation; their membership brings expertise; and in large part, their independent spirit brings an objectivity to parliamentary scrutiny, which is, of course, why we have just had such a heated debate on the previous motion.
	Debating the Standing Orders that relate to changes in the machinery of government would normally be nothing more than a formality or perhaps undertaken in a slightly different atmosphere; but on this occasion, the Standing Orders have some political significance, because they reflect the Government's continuous changes to the make-up of Whitehall. That betrays an obsession with spin and structures, a lack of delivery and a disregard for taxpayers' money.
	Before the Prime Minister's latest reshuffle of the Whitehall pack, the Government had already wasted £2 million of taxpayers' money on changing the names of Departments. For example, the Department for Transport became the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions, then the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and then the Department for Transport again. But did it deliver? A train is cancelled every five minutes; bus use is down; and the Government abandoned their pledge to reduce traffic congestion. Carbon emissions are rising, and council tax has doubled. I am sure the public were delighted that the Government's response to those failures was to change the Department's name three times.
	One might have thought that this Prime Minister would have learned from the mistakes of the previous one, but I am afraid that he has not. He has created the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. According to written answers that I have received—buried on busy news days—the new Departments for Children, Schools and Families and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have already spent thousands of pounds on new signs and rebranding.
	Whatever the worth of continuing to tinker with the machinery of Whitehall, it makes sense that the parliamentary Committees that scrutinise the new Departments should shadow them accurately. I therefore support the changes to the Committees—with one exception. I have a strong reservation about the decision to scrap the Science and Technology Committee. I heard what the Leader of the House said about the expansion of the number of Members on the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee in order to enable it to have a Sub-Committee to cover that area. However, I question whether that is going to be able to provide the same degree of focus on science issues as the current Science and Technology Committee—particularly in the light of the implications of the latest report of the Modernisation Committee, which will mean that questions to Chairmen of Select Committees will be allowed in the House and there will be more debates on Select Committee reports.
	As I understand it, under the structure that the right hon. and learned Lady is setting up, questions would not be able to go to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, whereas if we retained the Science and Technology Committee, the Chairman of that Committee, and those issues, would be able to have that focus, through questions. The Sub-Committee is no replacement for a stand-alone specialist Science and Technology Committee. Perhaps that is why, in her explanatory memorandum, the right hon. and learned Lady committed a Freudian slip and referred to the new Department as the Department for Innovation, Universities and Science—rather than Skills.
	Talking of the new education Departments and Committees, I note something that will be of interest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). It seems that the term limits for Committee Chairmen will be unaffected by the changes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman hoped that he might have the opportunity to continue to serve as Chairman of the Select Committee, so I commiserate with him. It is a poor reward for his dedicated service to successive Labour Secretaries of State for Education.
	Perhaps the Government are putting this measure through because they have even more people to put on the Select Committees who they believe are going to take the Government line. That brings me to the fact that the Prime Minister thinks that it is acceptable for Parliamentary Private Secretaries to sit on Select Committees.

Theresa May: I repeat what I just said to the hon. Gentleman: my point about Parliamentary Private Secretaries concerns their ability to challenge the Government. Unless I am very much mistaken, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is far from being a member of the Government, and he is an assiduous challenger and scrutineer of them in all that they do, particularly when it comes to defence matters.
	We are also considering the motion relating to membership of the Modernisation Committee, on which I serve. I should say to the Leader of the House that I do not share the concerns that some of my hon. Friends have about whether that Committee should be chaired by the Leader of the House—that is, by a member of the Government. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), was wont to say that the Committee's advantage was that it was chaired by a member of the Government, and its disadvantage was that it was chaired by a member of the Government. It is a difficult one, and, as I say, I do not share the concerns about whether a Government member should chair the Committee. However, as the Leader of the House will know, I am concerned about the fact that she is chairman and deputy leader of the Labour party, as well as a member, and potentially the Chair, of that Select Committee.
	On the chairmanship of Select Committees, one reason we had such a heated debate on the previous motion was that it was implied that the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) was being put on the Home Affairs Committee in order to chair it. In fact, it was more than an implication; the Leader of the House actually said as much in her speech, Indeed, one of her arguments for the introduction of the motion was that without him, there would be no Chairman.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. When he was the Chairman of the Committee, the present Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor chaired it with great integrity and brought forward a number of significant proposals that change the relative balance between the Executive and the Members of the House. I look forward to the Leader of the House tabling motions that will put into practice the results of the Committee's inquiry into enhancing the role of the Back Bencher, which will have been of particular interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and for Buckingham (John Bercow), who are both assiduous in exercising their role as effective Back Benchers.
	The motion also makes changes to the European Standing Committees. Instead of tinkering with those Committee—the motion merely changes their names—why does not the right hon. and learned Lady reform them properly? If she and the Prime Minister are serious about putting Parliament first, they need to improve our system for scrutinising European legislation. That means a proper scrutiny reserve, an end to the failed European Standing Committee system, and measures to hold Ministers to account on the Floor of the House. As it happens, I made a speech setting out a number of proposals in this area last week, and I would be very happy to send it to the right hon. and learned Lady if she wished to know what those were.
	The motion is significant not only for what it contains, but for what it does not contain. I have just referred to the latest report of the Modernisation Committee, which dealt with enhancing the role of the Back Bencher. It contained important proposals to make Select Committees more accountable to other hon. Members. Those included questions to Select Committee Chairman and debates on Committee reports. Despite the report being approved, published and promoted by the last Leader of the House, it has still not been put into effect. When she responds to the debate, perhaps the right hon. and learned Lady will say when those proposals are likely to be brought before the House so that they can be put into practice.
	What of the Prime Minister's proposal that Select Committees should have the power to scrutinise public appointments? We had a debate earlier on the nomination for the chairmanship of the Statistics Board, the one public appointment that goes before a Select Committee of the House, the Treasury Committee. I support the concept. It was recommended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in his democracy taskforce report, which was recently published. If the Prime Minister is so keen to strengthen Parliament and so keen to give new powers to Select Committees, why has not that innovation been included in today's motion on the machinery of government?
	What of the Prime Minister's proposal for regional Ministers and regional Select Committees? I have some questions about the role of regional Select Committees. The regional Ministers are in place, but the corresponding regional Select Committees have not been established. There are considerable problems with the concept of regional Ministers. They do nothing to address the fundamental problem of the Prime Minister's constitutional reforms, notably the West Lothian question. They will create split accountability between the regional Ministers and the departmental Ministers. They risk more frequent conflicts of interest between Members' ministerial, regional and constituency concerns, and they are based on regions that exist only in bureaucrats' minds.
	For example, I should be interested to know what the Minister for the South East, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) knows about my constituency, Maidenhead. The problems of his constituency are quite different from those in mine. The regional Ministers do not seem to have any executive powers, in which case what is their purpose? I come back to the point that I made a little earlier. The regional Ministers have been appointed. Why have not the Committees that scrutinise them been established? After all, the Prime Minister promised the two together.
	Today's motion is not as uncontroversial as similar motions usually are. It is right to change the structure of Select Committees to mirror the changes in Government Departments. It is right for the sake of parliamentary accountability for the House to keep up with changes in Whitehall, but that does not mean that I will support the motion with any enthusiasm, because it betrays many things about the Government. It betrays an obsession with structures, not delivery, a disregard for taxpayers' money, and a Prime Minister who, far from trusting Parliament, is intent on continuing the spin.

Brian Iddon: I think that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), I am the longest-serving current member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I have served under three Chairmen—Michael Clark, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and now the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).
	As right hon. and hon. Members will know, I am, as a chemist, pretty close to the science and technology community. The first inkling of the opposition in the science community to the Government's proposals was when I attended the parliamentary affairs committee of the Royal Society of Chemistry a few days after the announcements. It is not only chemists who sit round that table but members of most of the other professional organisations. Initially they were not only surprised but somewhat outraged by the proposal to disband the Science and Technology Committee. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, that Committee was created by the previous Administration to create in the House a greater focus on science and technology. The scientific community out there have recognised that focus and have been very supportive of the work of the members of the Committee throughout its lifetime. We have to try to send out the right signal—that the volume and quality of work will continue under the new structure.
	I have no doubt that the Government's intentions in creating the new Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee was honourable, and I think that it is the right way forward in terms of focusing the House's responsibilities on those areas. However, I am a little wary about the creation of a science and technology Sub-Committee. The main departmental Committee will consider the research councils—that will be one of its important remits—and science, engineering and technology in the universities, but it will also have to focus on other university-related issues in the arts and humanities, as well as medical schools and so on. Moreover, the Leitch report will demand that it focus to a much greater extent than the House has focused before on the skills agenda. We are constantly picking up on the fact that there is a great shortage of skills in the science, technology and engineering world.
	I am particularly concerned about the amount of resources that the Sub-Committee will have. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has already said that things might not turn out to be as bad as some of us suspect. I remind her, however, of the volume of work that we do at the moment, with seven to nine reports a year. Even taking out the work that the main Committee will do, I doubt whether the Sub-Committee could get through annually two or three major reports such as the space policy report that we have just published, or the marine science report that is due out. It takes at least nine months to collect the evidence, written and oral, and we travel extensively collecting evidence from abroad. We in this country must constantly measure ourselves against the best, which is usually America but also Japan, Germany and France. We have to travel to see what people are doing there. Would adequate resources be available to provide sufficient Clerks and secretarial support for the Committee, and to allow its members to travel?
	I recognise that the Government intend to put 14 Members on the main Committee, whereas there are only 11 members of the Science and Technology Committee. Even so, I would guesstimate that there would be only five or six members on the Sub-Committee. Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any thoughts about that? I realise that the decision might be made by the main Committee.
	My main point is this. I find serving on a Select Committee, if one is assiduous in turning up to most of the meetings, reading the reports and going on the visits, quite hard work, and I think that most Members would agree, whatever Committee they sit on. A scientist lucky enough to serve on the main Committee covering the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills who is also sitting on the Sub-Committee will find that they have a considerable extra volume of work, and members of the Sub-Committee will probably also want to listen to debates in the main Committee. At the same time, the Government are creating regional Committees. We are asking an awful lot of Members by creating this extra work alongside the other work that they are involved in, which I find increases all the time.
	The reports produced by the present Science and Technology Committee have been excellent. It has published cross-cutting reports on many Departments, and considered agencies outside those Departments. We have turned over stones that I do not think people wanted us to turn over; we have looked into nooks and crannies. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the smaller number of members on the Sub-Committee would be given a strong remit to turn over stones that need turning over and to look into nooks and crannies, bearing in mind the fact that those may be areas of other Departments' work. Unless the role of the Sub-Committee, if it is created, is established very firmly and it is given those powers, its work will not be as effective as that of a main Committee. With those thoughts, I look forward to my right hon. and learned Friend's response.

Phil Willis: I do not want to repeat many of the comments that were made earlier, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. I start on a positive note. One of the science community's major concerns has arisen because the Government have been so supportive of science. It is important to put it on the record that the resources going into science, particularly since 1999, have been a huge success story, and include £3.4 billion to research councils. That has fuelled high expectations of the Government's involvement in science. It is important to start with that positive comment, rather than with some of the negative ones.
	I should like to continue in the tenor of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who calmly and temperately explained many of the reasons for concern about the loss of the Science and Technology Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) echoed those reasons.
	I support the establishment of the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Bringing together the university sector, which delivers so much of our research, and the research councils, which pay for much of it, is long overdue and will mean that we are able to plan much more effectively. The whole House agrees with the need for a departmental Committee to scrutinise the new Department, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made clear. That must be right. Also, certain aspects of the Science and Technology Committee's current role, particularly its scrutiny of the office of science and innovation and the office of the Government's chief scientific adviser, have moved to the Department, so I accept, too, that it is quite logical for those aspects to be scrutinised by the new Committee.
	However, the main concern for the science community, for business and for members of the Committee—I pay tribute to all its members, who serve it extraordinarily well and put in an enormous amount of time—is about cross-governmental scrutiny of science. I know that other Committees scrutinise across Government—the Public Accounts Committee is obviously the most notable one—but the Science and Technology Committee looks not only at the nooks and crannies, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said, but at science right across Government. Some of the examples of the former Committee's cross-cutting inquiries include its work on human technologies and the law, which has resulted in a draft Bill being considered by both Houses and a new Bill on embryos and tissues, which will be introduced in the Queen's Speech in October. All that began with the Committee's work.
	The Committee carried out work on forensic science, and the Leader of the House appeared before the Committee during the follow-up to that inquiry. That work showed that forensic science was covered by various Government Departments, but particularly by various parts of the then Home Office. It also carried out work on identity card technology, on the classification of illegal drugs, on the regulation of hybrids and chimeras, on carbon capture and storage, on space policy and on ocean science. Those are all cross-cutting subjects that involve different Departments in making their contribution to the science agenda.
	A big mistake—if I may be so bold—that the Leader of the House and her colleagues made when considering replacing the Science and Technology Select Committee was to believe that it mainly scrutinised the Office of Science and Innovation. In fact, most of the Ministers who appeared before it were from other Departments; they had nothing to do with science and innovation per se. This is the exciting thing about a cross-government scrutiny Committee. For example, when we were considering space policy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was the lead Department for some of the new space technologies. Similarly, when we were looking at forensic science, we dealt with the Home Office. So such a Committee would not be a case of double jeopardy for Ministers in the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. In fact, the work would be spread quite widely across the arena.
	To be frank, the amount of support for the Committee from outside the House took me by surprise. The Leader of the House made clear reference to some of the letters that she had received. However, on 13 July, a letter was published in  The Times which had been signed by the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Physics, the Institute of Biology, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, and the Geology Society of London. It stated:
	"At a time when the Government has brought science and innovation policy centre stage with the welcome creation of the new Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, it would be a tragedy if its immediate parliamentary consequence was the abolition of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology."
	On 20 July, in an open letter to the Leader of the House, Lord Rees at the Royal Society emphasised:
	"This Committee does a great deal of vital work scrutinising scientific matters and the use of evidence across government departments".
	When the president of the Royal Society, four Nobel laureates, 30 other distinguished scientists and the organisation Sense About Science say that this is an organisation within Parliament that they want to save, we really should take notice of them.
	It was not just the academics who expressed a view. Mark Henderson, the lead science correspondent for  The Times said:
	"science will never fit into a neat departmental box: it is important to each and every arm of the government."
	I believe that that is readily accepted. The Science Council made it clear that the Committee
	"has been able to address issues from the broad perspective and publish reports that required a joined-up Government response".
	Richard Lambert, the general secretary of the CBI, said:
	"A particular issue for business is ensuring that DIUS maintains a strong economic focus".
	He went on to say that
	"a strong S & T committee would be a valuable part of the scrutiny mechanism in this area".
	The breadth of support for the Committee's cross-cutting role within Parliament is an important factor.
	I turn to the solution that the Government are offering. I pay tribute to the Government Chief Whip, who has met me, and other right hon. and hon. Members, on a number of occasions to discuss a way forward. We are pleased that the number of Committee members is to be increased to 14, and that a standing Sub-Committee will be established, but I repeat what I said to the Leader of the House earlier, and what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East has also said—that unless the new Committee has the resources to carry out the kind of cross-cutting science inquiries that the present Committee undertakes, it will be a Select Committee in name only. That would be a betrayal of the work done before and a betrayal of all those people—the learned professors I mentioned, and indeed people in industry—who are so supportive of the Government's commitment to, and policy on, science.

Stewart Hosie: Motion 6, in part at least, will put in place the departmental Select Committees to mirror the new Departments. That is an eminently sensible and quite necessary process, which ought to be without issue. However, two changes cause my hon. Friends and I some concern.
	The first issue concerns the size of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which effectively replaces the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Innovation has been removed, but it has been replaced with regulatory reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) who sat on the old DTI Committee has looked into the matter and estimated the volume of work. He sees the work load as broadly similar, so it seems odd to us that the size of the Committee should be reduced from 14 members to 11.
	Secondly, on a related point, all Select Committees must, so far as possible, reflect opinion throughout the House; they must secure a correct level of departmental scrutiny, with questions from all parties reflecting all opinions within the Chamber. It is likely, however, that if the reduction of the new Committee from 14 members to 11 is allowed to proceed, the Scottish National party would lose its only place on a departmental Select Committee. It would leave the joint SNP-Plaid Cymru group with only one departmental Select Committee place—on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.  [Interruption.] Notwithstanding some of the more partisan comments, surely as Leader of the House the right hon. and learned Lady must understand that, if we are to have proper scrutiny, particularly of the important role of business, enterprise and regulatory reform in a growing economy, questioning must come from people of all parties expressing all opinions.
	It is unlikely that the right hon. and learned Lady will be prepared tonight to overturn the decision to reduce the size of this new Committee. However, we hope that she will be able to give a commitment to review the work load of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee over the next year or so to determine whether a membership of 11 is appropriate or whether it should be increased. We also recognise that she is not the person to appoint or make recommendations for appointments to any Committee—nor should she be—but we hope that in her summing up she will reflect on the needs of Select Committees accurately and properly to reflect the full range of opinions in this House. She should provide us with some comfort on that and she should understand the necessity of minority party opinion and voices, particularly on the key Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Richard Shepherd: I shall confine my remarks to a narrow area: motion 7 on the modernisation of the House. The Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party—a member of the Government, effectively—has tabled the motion:
	"That Mr Jack Straw and Paddy Tipping be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Ms Harriet Harman"—
	a Cabinet Minister—
	"and Chris Bryant be added."
	He is, of course, a Parliamentary Private Secretary. There is no doubt that the right hon. and learned Lady is a well qualified individual. I know that it is not her being an old Pauline that makes her well qualified; it is that she is a Minister, has had experience and has had a connection with civil liberties. All those factors commend themselves to me. However—I guess she expected me to say "however"—the Committee is now merely the mechanism by which the Executive control the House of Commons. All the reports on the workings of the House of Commons have usurped the role of the Procedure Committee. We have reports on the guillotine, or what we grandly call in Standing Orders "Timetables". In fact, pages 59 to 72 are given over to the way in which the Executive control the detail of the examination of Bills—one of the most important tasks that the House performs.
	I shall give the example of what I think a Leader of the House should be. In the years that I have been here, the most remarkable Leader of the House has been the right hon. John Biffen, now Lord Biffen. I say that because the tides of Executive ambition come across the House from time to time. The idea of a business Committee and timetabling, which in our experience transpired to be the guillotining of Bills, were on the agenda. On 27 February 1986, when such motions were before the House, the then Leader of the House, Mr. Biffen said:
	"If I were concerned solely with the volume and dispatch of Government business, I would welcome such pervasive timetabling as is now suggested.
	The House will be disposed to assume that the proposed arrangements will be operated in good faith and without an eye to party advantage. That may well be so, but I think I am entitled to observe that the"
	proposed
	"Legislative Business Committee would have a Government majority, and that if the Government did not like any proposed timetable, it could be voted down or amended on the Floor of the House.
	On balance therefore, I think that the Government"—
	this is the Leader of the House speaking as the Leader of the House—
	"would be advantaged by the Procedure Committee proposals. All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition, and I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends, in their moments of supreme confidence, should consider, at least theoretically, how these proposals would bear upon the Opposition.
	The Westminster political process is oblique and wide-ranging. It is like a seamless robe, which includes Government legislation, and much else. At present, the Opposition have open-ended opportunities for time and debate on legislation. If these are automatically extinguished, the Opposition will be deprived of a pressure point which is often used to secure accommodation from the Government, not merely on legislation, but on other points in the political process."—[ Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.]
	That is why John Biffen was a remarkable Leader of the House.
	The House had a genuinely free vote. We have to remember that Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister. I think that the current Leader of the House was in the House. Mr. Speaker was in the House. The leader of the Scottish Parliament or Prime Minister of Scotland, the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), was in the House, as were some Liberal Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)—who was formerly a distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee—and a couple of bonny Members present who represent Glasgow constituencies. What have we reduced ourselves to when we no longer think that this House can aspire to have as its leader someone who realises that there is a delicate balance to strike? That is what this debate is really about.
	The proposition before us is that the current Leader of the House should be made a member of a Select Committee. She asserted in an earlier debate that that was a matter of custom, but it is certainly not a matter for Standing Orders. The Modernisation Committee was designed for a purpose, but what I have witnessed over the past 10 years is the almost total seizure of all procedural matters relating to the conduct of business in this House. The Government will always win, because they are a Government by virtue of having a majority; the majoritarian principle prevails, so they will get their way. That is why the Leader of the House is the most important intermediary in terms of the fairness of the balance of debate.
	I am anxious about another Parliamentary Private Secretary being placed on the Committee, because it is packed with such Members. Its members include former deputy Chief Whips, a Liberal Democrat Whip and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is currently sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I almost feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—the former Procedure Committee Chairman—and I are the only Back Benchers serving on it. Few of the new intake have any memory of what the House of Commons should aspire to be. We talk much about returning the balance of power to the House of Commons; the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned that. However, unless we have a Leader of the House who is prepared to take a bigger view, we will be as we are now: reduced.
	I have explained why I oppose the motion, but I wish to ask a further question that it does not address: do we need the Modernisation Committee in its current form? Functions such as what office accommodation we should have and how more easily to achieve proper representation should be separated from procedural matters that inform Standing Orders. We saw what happened today. A Cabinet Minister, with the support of a Government majority, swept aside the proper process for appointing Members to serve on a Select Committee. That was said to be necessary for a variety of reasons. People can read  Hansard and decide whether they share my judgment on that or agree with the Leader of the House. It is not right that we have cast into the hands of the Leader of the House, through the mechanism of a Committee that already has so many Parliamentary Private Secretaries on it— [Interruption.] In answer to that, I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's PPS is on it, for instance. We are discussing whether the Government control it. Whips are members of it. It is not a Committee of Back Benchers that can look with objective separation at what is appropriate for the House. Let me give an example.
	The Leader of the House's predecessor—who now has another Government job as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor—said when he was Chairman of the Committee, "There is no point in going down that route because the Whips will not accept it." That is what we who serve on the Modernisation Committee now have to suffer. I know of no other Committee where the Chairman would say, "We can't say this, because the Whips will not accept it." Taking that route would kill whatever worth the Select Committee system has. However, not only the previous Leader of the House took that view—it has been characteristic of the whole process and progress of the Committee.
	I commend to the House the democracy commission of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Through it, he proposes that these two Committees—the ancient and important Select Committee on Procedure, and the Modernisation Committee—should be merged and under the chairmanship of an Opposition Member. He does so because there must be a certain detachment in the assessment of what is appropriate for the House.
	I know that my objections and arguments will be brushed aside. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] There you have it, but this House is nothing unless it can control more of its business. The Prime Minister asserts, and I actually believe him, that that is what he wants—that we play a more meaningful role in the dispensation of power within the matters that fall to us. I therefore urge Members, for what it is worth, to think seriously on this, for there is one compelling reason why the present nomination is wrong. Among all the credits to her name, the Leader of the House is also chairman of the Labour party. I cannot think of a more partisan role, of necessity, and of a more blatant example of how the Government control this Chamber.

Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Whatever Members on the Government Benches might think of what he has said, historically and by pedigree he has shown himself to be totally committed to this House, to proper debate and to the rights of Back Benchers in all parts of the House. I personally salute him for the work that he has done over all the years that he has been here.
	I am delighted, too, that my hon. Friend quoted John Biffen, who was an inspirational and dedicated Leader of the House—a man who led the House without too much party politics not only at business questions, but at other times. I make a plea to the current Leader of the House that the party political content on the Floor of the House be kept to a minimum. While she has a prime duty to ensure that the Government get their business, her other duty is clearly to represent the best interests of the House as a whole.
	The omen for the House of what happened in the earlier debate, on which there was a vote, is not good. Unfortunately, and despite not only my pleadings but those of a Member of the House who is highly respected in all parts of it—my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—the Leader of the House, who could have withdrawn that motion, chose not to do so. I regret that. As a result, the omens for fairness and even-handedness do not herald well for Members in all parts of the House, particularly Opposition Members.
	I also support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that at some future stage, the Modernisation Committee should be merged with the Procedure Committee. We are talking now about the appointment of two people, one of whom will, in due course, be elected as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. It is a very powerful Committee and it seems utterly wrong that it should be dominated by one party. That is why I question the appointment of a PPS as well as the Leader of the House. Unfortunately, a PPS cannot be objective. He or she cannot adopt an independent view separate from that of his or her Minister. Therefore, the two are tied together inextricably. Clearly the Committee will suffer as a result. Members are appointed to a Select Committee not just for their party view, but to take an objective view. The discussion of modernisation should have nothing directly to do with party politics: it should have everything to do with the convenience of this House and its ability to do its job of holding the Government to account and scrutinising legislation.
	I have had the pleasure of serving on the Modernisation Committee since it was set up by the new Labour Government in the autumn of 1997 and I have served under several Leaders of the House. One of the most inspirational and exciting to work with was the late Robin Cook. He was committed to the House and to returning independence and integrity to it. He suffered a major setback when the Committee's proposals on the appointment procedure for Select Committees—unanimously agreed by that Committee under his chairmanship—were defeated by the Government. Although it was supposedly a free vote, there were Government Whips outside the Lobbies saying, "Vote this way, this is the Labour Lobby." I hugely admired Robin Cook for his principles and almost unlimited ability, but he was disappointed and depressed that a proposal that would have improved the independence and integrity of the House, by getting those people on to Select Committees who had an interest in that Committee, the ability to do the job, and the knowledge and experience to serve it—and by extension the House—well, had been defeated.
	I shall not vote against the motion. As I have said, I have spoken with the Leader of the House and I say to her, not in a patronising way, that she will have to show the House and the members of the Committee that she can be entirely impartial in seeking to serve the interests of the House as it holds the Government—

Harriet Harman: I thank the right hon. Lady for her clarification of that point.
	I understand the concern of Members about Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but they are not members of the Government. The previous Government did the same as we do. PPSs do not sit on Committees of the Departments in which they are a PPS.
	The right hon. Lady asked about Europe. The system of European Standing Committees is of interest to a number of Members. The Government are still considering their position on how the system of scrutiny for EU matters can best be developed.

Harriet Harman: The normal expectation is that all Labour Members of Parliament will vote with the Government.
	As I said, we shall continue to look at the question of proper scrutiny of European legislation. Regional scrutiny was raised.

Harriet Harman: Indeed. That situation is different for a number of reasons that I mentioned in my opening comments and to which I shall return briefly.
	We are committed to greater accountability to the regions of England and the Government are giving further consideration to the proposals for regional scrutiny and will report back to the House.
	I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on the Science and Technology Committee. They are absolutely right: the volume and quality of that work must continue. The number of members on the Sub-Committee that is to be constituted is a matter for the Committee. If the Committee wants it to do so, the Sub-Committee will have a strong remit to turn over stones—as has been said—and to look into nooks and crannies.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned parliamentary scrutiny of machinery of Government changes. Obviously, the machinery of Government is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister and one would not want Departments to be in abeyance while there were long discussions, but the hon. Gentleman's point is worth considering. Ministers from different Departments, when dealing with science issues, as well as other stakeholders, could be called to give evidence to any Sub-Committee that deals with science and technology.
	The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) raised the issue of the smaller parties. He has discussed that with the usual channels, and I will ensure that I raise the issues that he has raised in the House today.

Harriet Harman: I was a Member when John Biffen was Leader of the House. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at this week's issue of  The House Magazine, he will see that, when I was asked which Leader of the House I would model myself on, I mentioned John Biffen. So I well remember that time, but I also remember his not succeeding in the face of his Government riding roughshod over his attempts to strengthen the House.
	I do not think that the hon. Member for Macclesfield should consider the Modernisation Committee as being packed; it works by consensus. Do the hon. Modernisation Committee Members feel that they have not been able to achieve what the Modernisation Committee wants to achieve because the Committee is packed? It has made progress—more progress than, unfortunately, John Biffen, however good his intentions, made in his day.

Alex Salmond: The point about the Leader of the House having special responsibilities is surely well made. At various times Select Committee arrangements have, in effect, broken down—as with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) when there was an attempt to deprive him of the Chair of the Health Committee. Chairs of Committees, as proposed by the usual channels, have been overturned by the House. Usually things come to a crisis because the Leader of the House at the time is not able to reflect the whole balance of the House. The procedures are very open to challenge—as the right hon. and learned Lady well knows. Every single change to a Select Committee could be debated on the Floor of the House. We could go on for an interminable time unless the Leader of the House is sensitive to a number of points that are being made.

Ordered,
	That Mr Jack Straw and Paddy Tipping be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Ms Harriet Harman and Chris Bryant be added.— [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Harriet Harman: We now debate the Government's draft legislative programme—the list of Bills that we are considering for the next Session. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to see, as part of his constitutional reform agenda, stronger accountability of the Government to Parliament and greater engagement between Parliament and the people. The change in the way that we plan to announce our legislative programme marks a step forward in those respects. Here in Parliament we spend most of our time legislating, so it is right that Parliament should have early sight of the Government's thinking on what we will be asking it to consider. That will allow hon. Members to look at the overall shape of our programme before it is set in stone and will help members of the public and interested parties to give their views to hon. Members. This debate is to enable hon. Members to give their preliminary views on the draft legislative programme, which has been sent to all hon. Members and is on the Government's websites.
	Officially, the contents of our legislative programme have always remained secret until the Queen's Speech at the state opening of Parliament. However, because of the necessary discussion that has to go on between Government Departments and stakeholders, information does of course get into the public domain, but it does so in the worst way—unofficially and piecemeal. Lobbying firms and political consultancies get paid millions of pounds to guess for their clients what is likely to be in the Queen's Speech. However, while bits and pieces are glimpsed unofficially, the work of the Government in putting together their legislative programme has hitherto gone on behind closed doors, with no one outside Government able to see the overview of the legislative programme as a whole until the whole thing is ready to steam ahead into Parliament. Those outside, because they have not been allowed to know before the Queen's Speech what the Government are doing, cannot have sensible discussions with the Government. This time last year, I knew that the draft coroners Bill was not in the legislative programme. Those concerned—coroners, organisations of bereaved relatives, and lawyers who specialise in inquest work—were lobbying for changes to the Bill. They would have been better off lobbying for the Bill to be in the legislative programme, but I could not tell them that what mattered at that stage was not some amendments but the fact that it was not even in the programme. It makes sense for people to be able to see the work that is under way in Government before it is set in tablets of stone. This does not in any way change the state opening, the Queen's Speech and the role of Her Majesty the Queen in setting out the Government's concluded plans for the Session.
	The publication of our draft programme builds on a number of steps that we have taken to improve the ability of this House to scrutinise legislation. We already publish some Bills in draft. To date, we have published 58 Bills in draft since 1997. During this Session we published four bills in draft: the regulatory enforcement and sanctions Bill, the human tissue and embryos Bill, the climate change Bill and the local transport Bill. I recognise that we would all like to see more Bills published in draft. During the next Session, we intend to publish in draft an equalities Bill, a marine Bill, a heritage protection Bill and a cultural property and armed conflicts Bill.
	I can announce today that following the publication of the draft coroner's Bill and its plain English translation, I have asked parliamentary counsel to produce alongside the draft marine Bill a plain language version in time for its introduction. It is my intention that in publishing our draft programme, we should work towards publishing at least one plain language version per Session.
	There has also been the Public Bill Committee procedure which, during the current Session, has meant that Government Bills starting in the Commons after Christmas have been subject to additional scrutiny. The UK Borders Bill and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill have been considered in this way. From the start of the next Session, all Government Bills starting in the Commons will be subject to this procedure, which, by the taking of oral and written evidence from Ministers and other interested parties, as with the Select Committee process, means that there is more extensive scrutiny.

Theresa May: I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Lady's answer to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), and to what she has said since, and I hoped that she would be able to give a commitment to the principle that two days would be given to Second Reading of some important Bills, and that a greater amount of time should be given to Report and Third Reading on some occasions—a point raised by the Modernisation Committee. Report stage should be given this time in particular because it is an opportunity for Back Benchers who do not serve on a Bill's Committee to raise issues in the House.

Harriet Harman: As the right hon. Lady knows, it is important for us to see whether we can give enough time on the Floor of the House to Bills that a number of hon. Members want to speak about. From time to time, that has been done, but I understand that there are proposals that the process should be more systematic and routine. Obviously, those will have to be considered.
	I said that if a Bill is not in the draft programme, that does not mean that it will not come forward in the future, and nor does the draft legislative programme substitute for, or cut across, more detailed consultations on Bills that will be led by the Departments concerned. I am a firm believer that the more open the debate, the better the final outcome, and it is in that spirit that we have published the draft legislative programme.
	I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for agreeing to give detailed scrutiny of this legislative programme. I and the Secretary of State for Justice are to give evidence to them in October. There will be public consultation meetings in each region, facilitated by the Government offices in the region, and the Cabinet Office will co-ordinate that consultation process.

Simon Hughes: If consultation is to be meaningful and not thought to be a gimmick—and I welcome the idea of it—will the Leader of the House undertake to ensure that a summary of consultation results will be available to colleagues, and that the consultation will end in sufficient time for it to be able to influence the outcome? People would know that the consultation will end by the first week in October or something, we would see the results, and there would be a real dialogue with the Government in the month running up to the Queen's Speech.

Harriet Harman: I am sure that that will be the case. Our officials have liaised with officials in the devolved Administrations and I have discussed the process with the First Ministers in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
	Having set out the reasons behind and the process of publishing our draft legislative programme, I will deal with its content. I do that simply by reminding the House of the Prime Minister's words on 11 July. He said that the programme seeks to
	"respond to the rising aspirations of the British people"
	by delivering
	"new and better opportunities in education, employment and the provision of housing and health care,"
	and ensuring
	"that in a fast-changing world there is opportunity and security not just for some people, but for all the British people."—[ Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1449.]
	There will be an education and skills Bill to enable all young people to stay in education or training till 18. There will be a new pensions Bill to ensure that all working people have the right to a workplace pension, with a duty on every employer to contribute towards it. There will be a new housing and regeneration Bill, which will help put affordable housing within the reach of those who cannot afford to buy or rent.
	The planning reform Bill will implement the Eddington and Barker reports. The climate change Bill will introduce a legal framework for reducing carbon emissions in each five year period to 2050.
	There will be a health and social care Bill to create a stronger health and social care regulator and ensure better access for patients to clean and safe services. There will be Bills on children in care, and the Government have already introduced the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill for carry-over into the next Session. The unclaimed assets Bill will allow money in dormant bank accounts to go towards improving our country's youth and community facilities.
	The regulatory enforcement and sanctions Bill will support business by keeping regulation of compliant businesses to a minimum, while targeting and penalising those that deliberately disregard the law. The employment simplification Bill will deliver simpler and fairer enforcement of the national minimum wage.
	Protecting the security and safety of the British people is paramount for every Government, so we have introduced the Criminal Justice Bill, which will be carried over into the next Session, and we stand ready to include provisions that come from the review of policing by Sir Ronald Flanagan.
	Many of the proposals that the Prime Minister set out to the House in his speech on the governance of Britain will be included in a constitutional reform Bill.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her generosity in giving way to me a second time. Several Bills that she mentioned will have financial provisions. Last week, the Government exercised parliamentary privilege and prevented the other place from debating amendments to the Pensions Bill, claiming that they were to financial provisions and should not be debated again in the Lords. They could not therefore be brought back to the Chamber. Will the right hon. and learned Lady set out her definition of a money Bill as opposed to a Bill with financial provisions?

Harriet Harman: I will write to the right hon. Lady and refer her to the precedents that exist. I expect her, like me, to ensure that we sustain and defend the supremacy of this House.
	Hon. Members have read the proposed legislative programme in our Green Paper, so I will say no more about the detail but give them the opportunity to present their views in the debate. I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views on not only the content but the process.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is right. However, I emphasise that, this time round, it will not be a Rolls Royce process of consultation because we are starting late. We are simply putting a window on the front of Government activities. A great deal of activity goes on in preparing and planning the legislative programme. That is important in the context of what the House ultimately has to consider in the Government's proposed legislation. For the first time, people will be able to see the process before it is set in tablets of stone.

Theresa May: I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate the draft legislative programme. I also welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Lady listened to hon. Members' concerns and staged this debate separately from tomorrow's summer recess Adjournment debate. As she mentioned, the publication of the draft legislative programme was one of the proposals contained in the Prime Minister's statement on "The Governance of Britain", which also leads to the Constitutional Reform Bill.
	I wish that I could welcome the Prime Minister's new-found commitment to Parliament, if only it were genuine. Much has been made of his determination to make statements to the House before briefing them to the media. When he made his statement on the constitution to the House, everyone was impressed that he had not gone on the "Today" programme to talk about it there first. After the previous Prime Minister, who was so obsessed with spin, here was a new Prime Minister who put Parliament first—at least so said his spin doctors.
	The Prime Minister's statement included proposals to allow Parliament to vote on whether we go to war, to request the dissolution and recall of Parliament, to ratify international treaties, and to scrutinise public appointments, as well as proposals to remove the prime ministerial power to appoint bishops. That was in the statement made on 3 July, but on 2 July  The Daily Telegraph reported:
	"Gordon Brown will this week propose...giving up royal prerogatives traditionally exercised by the prime minister, such as the power to declare war without parliamentary approval or to appoint bishops to the Church of England. The House of Commons will be given new powers, including the right for MPs to recall Parliament during a recess if there is a national emergency, to hold American-style confirmation hearings...and to ratify international treaties."
	I imagine  The Daily Telegraph just made five lucky guesses. The same must be true of  The Independent's coverage of the right to trigger legislation by petition on 28 February,  The Guardian's prediction of citizens' juries on 27 February and the predictions by  The Times of a new ministerial code on 16 May and of a new Bill of Rights on 1 July. Before I talk about the draft legislative programme, I want to make one thing clear. All the bluster about announcing things to Parliament first was just that: bluster. There is already a whole list of examples of how the Prime Minister has treated Parliament and hon. Members with disdain.
	The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, promised in the previous Queen's Speech, will have its Second Reading in October, just a couple of weeks before the end of the Session. It is going to be a carry-over Bill, but the carry-over procedure was introduced for Bills that had nearly completed their parliamentary stages, not Bills at the very beginning. The Prime Minister has twice reversed policy—first on casinos, secondly on cannabis—in response to planted questions during Prime Minister's questions rather than in an oral statement, which would have given hon. Members the chance to ask questions of the Minister concerned. The Prime Minister has since insinuated to a press conference—not to Parliament—that he might reverse the liberalisation of licensing laws. Those proposals are not in the draft legislative programme.
	As we discussed in a previous debate this evening, the Prime Minister has also confirmed that Parliamentary Private Secretaries will sit on Select Committees. They might not be formal members of the Government, but they work for Ministers. That is a conflict of interest, but the Prime Minister has ignored it. As I mentioned in my intervention on the right hon. and learned Lady, the Prime Minister also opted to use parliamentary privilege to override the other place, after it voted for a lifeboat fund to compensate properly the 125,000 people who have lost their pension savings. If the Prime Minister trusts Parliament, why has he completely ignored the wishes of the other place?
	The Prime Minister is also ready to sign the latest EU treaty, as he made clear in Prime Minister's questions today, which would subjugate the Westminster Parliament to the institutions of the European Union. The conclusions of the previous European Council state:
	"National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union".
	The Prime Minister, who supposedly believes in the sovereignty of Parliament, is therefore happy to sign a treaty that places upon Parliament an obligation to do whatever the European Court of Justice decides is for the "good functioning" of the European Union. No, the Prime Minister does not believe in putting Parliament first.
	In relation to the proposed legislation in the draft legislative agenda, I said earlier that we had heard most of the statement on the constitution in the media before the Prime Minister made his statement. That was down to spin. However, we had heard most of the draft Queen's Speech many times over, throughout the Prime Minister's career. That was down to his failure to deliver. So why should people believe that he is going to deliver now, after all this time?
	Furthermore, why should we believe that the Government will deliver what is in this legislative programme when they have failed to deliver several Bills in their previous legislative programme? According to the Leader of the House's website, the following Government Bills for 2006-07 have not yet had their First Reading: the climate change Bill, the counter terrorism Bill, the protection of cultural property during armed conflict Bill, the House of Lords Bill, the human tissues and embryos Bill, the local government regulation office Bill, the party funding bill and the road transport Bill.
	Three of those Bills are actually in this draft legislative programme, but that should not be a surprise, because every single one of the 23 Bills proposed in the Prime Minister's statement has been announced before. For the information of hon. Members, and for the record, here are the relevant dates: the child maintenance and other payments Bill, December 2006; the children in care Bill, June 2007; the climate change Bill, March 2007; the constitutional reform Bill, July 2007; the coroners Bill, June 2006; the counter terrorism Bill, June 2007; the criminal justice Bill, July 2006; the Crossrail Bill, February 2005; the education and skills Bill, March 2007; the employment simplification Bill, March 2007; the energy Bill, May 2007; the European Communities (Finance) Bill, June 2007; the health and social care Bill, February 2007; the housing and regeneration Bill, March 2004; the human tissues and embryos Bill, December 2006; the local transport Bill, May 2007; the national insurance contributions Bill, March 2007; the pensions Bill, May 2006; the planning reform Bill, May 2007; the planning gain supplement Bill, March 2007; the regulatory enforcement and sanctions Bill, May 2007; the sale of student loans Bill, March 2007; and the unclaimed assets Bill, May 2005. A total of 23 bills, and not a single one of them is new.
	Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that he wanted more houses to be built. But he has said that before. He once said:
	"What would a Labour Government do today? We will get Britain building homes again".
	That was in 1994. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to develop long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. But he has said that before, too. He once said that he wanted to
	"develop a market for long-term fixed rate mortgages—something that is important to the UK".—[ Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 279.]
	That was in 2003. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to develop eco-towns, but he has said that before. His Housing Minister once said that the Government would
	"create small scale eco-community developments rather than individual homes".
	That was in 2006.
	Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to use unclaimed assets to spend on youth and community centres, but he has said that before, too. He once said:
	"Today I can announce an agreement with the banks and building societies that unclaimed assets held in bank accounts will be put to use to improve youth and community facilities".—[ Official Report, 5 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 613.]
	That was in 2005. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to raise the school leaving age. But he has said that before. He once said:
	"New proposals—universal education after sixteen".
	That was in 1996.
	So I do not know how the Prime Minister can claim that he is some kind of a new start. He is not a new start; he is a broken old record. And talking of records, the Prime Minister has missed this opportunity to put right his record. On his watch, 125,000 people have lost their pension savings. Where is the legislation to compensate them properly? On his watch, home ownership started to fall for the first time since records began. So why will people trust him to deliver more housing? On his watch, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million. So why will people trust him to create opportunities for young people? On his watch, the NHS has been plunged into deficit and forced to make swingeing cuts. Where is the action to stop the cuts? Where is the Bill to increase NHS autonomy and accountability? On his watch, violent prisoners have been released because there is not enough space for them in jail. Where is the legislation to ensure that criminals get what they deserve?
	In 2004, the Government committed themselves to introducing a marine Bill. The 2005 Labour manifesto, on which the right hon. and learned Lady was elected, promised to introduce a marine Bill during this Parliament. Where is it? And what about women? Only last week, the right hon. and learned Lady came to the House to make a particularly vacuous statement on her agenda for women, yet there is nothing in this legislative programme specifically for women. Where is the action on equal pay? Where is the action on human trafficking? Where is the help for the families who use a relative or neighbour to care for a child?
	As the legislative programme is rolled out, there will be Bills that we support and, where we do, we will engage constructively with Ministers. Indeed, we encouraged the Government to introduce a climate change Bill and I am pleased to see that they are doing so. As another example, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear today, we will work with the Prime Minister in making the country more secure against terrorists.
	On the whole, however, the draft Queen's Speech is a massive disappointment. The public wanted a change from the Blair years, but this legislative programme is not the answer to the country's needs, because this Prime Minister is not the answer to the country's needs, because he is not the change that the people want. He is not a change. His disdain for Parliament, his lack of new ideas, his spin and stealth are no change. It is just the same old Labour.

Fraser Kemp: I shall be brief. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at a unique parliamentary occasion: a discussion of the draft legislative programme. In the past, the programme has remained the preserve of a few people in the higher echelons of Government, but now the entire House has the opportunity to participate in it. Whatever disagreements hon. Members have with the programme, the fact that we can debate it here is a very welcome step forward indeed. I believe that most Members agree with it.
	There is a great deal in the programme, but I shall mention three Bills that I believe will impact on my constituency and on others. Few Members, councillors or elected officials can help feeling a sense of hopelessness and anger when constituents approach them about problems with public transport services within their communities. I believe that the problem is particularly acute for Members who represent areas that are geographically isolated and have statistically low car usage. No one disagrees that bus operators should be able to make a profit, but we must ensure that they continue to provide an essential public service. They receive a substantial public subsidy, and with that should go a clear responsibility to ensure an effective public service. I hope that the draft Bill will have real teeth for elected local authorities to ensure effective public transport in their communities.
	Members often present petitions before the House and we sometimes meet the managing directors of our bus companies. Occasionally, we have a little bit of success, but there is a major problem, as everyone's postbag over the last few months will confirm. When these problems are compounded, they can lead to genuine hardship and isolation. It is often the elderly and, indeed, the young trying to take advantage of employment opportunities, who live in these isolated areas and experience transport problems. I believe that the local transport Bill will be widely welcomed in the House and outside in the wider community.
	Secondly, I would mention the child maintenance and other payments Bill. Much attention will rightly be focused on the question of child maintenance, but I shall make particular mention of the other payments side of it. The Bill includes a commitment to set up a scheme for lump-sum compensation for people suffering from asbestos-related diseases.
	My constituency used to have a chemical works, owned by Turner and Newall, which made asbestos products for 80 years. The consequences were dire not just for the work force, but for their families as well. My grandfather worked there after he left the services after the first world war and my own aunt has asbestos-related disease. She has it because my grandmother washed my grandfather's overalls. That shows how insidious this disease is and how much hardship it creates. As I said, it is not just those workers who are affected, but their families and others who worked in shipyards, plumbing and a range of other industries.
	It is brave and honourable to recognise what happened there. The people who suffer from this disease have pretty dreadful lives, with all the disadvantage and pain that goes with it. This lump-sum compensation may make a little bit of difference to however many years these people have left. The Government are acting wholly honourably by including this measure in the next legislative programme.
	Finally, the education and skills Bill is more important than any other Bill for securing long-term economic prosperity and success for this nation. It offers an opportunity for a national crusade to ingrain in the nation's psyche the importance of the skills and education agenda.
	The impact of globalisation hits us all. Seven years ago, a group of women workers in my constituency who were in textiles and made garments for Marks and Spencer lost their jobs. Marks and Spencer made the commercial decision to source those goods from the far east and China. The argument then was all about low wages and low skills, and how we could compete with them. Over the next three years, by 2010, China will produce more PhDs than the whole of the United States. The argument is no longer about trying to compete on low wages and skills; it is about competing on skills alone. We need Ministers to sell the Bill. I hope that whatever specific disagreements we might have on different sides of the Chamber, we can have a form of national unity on the importance of developing the skills agenda.
	I recently took part in a state of the city debate in the city that I represent—Sunderland. I was asked a question by a member of our local Youth Parliament: what sort of jobs did I think they, as young people, would have in 30 years' time? The question made me think. It was very perceptive. I thought about what the economy was like when I left school just over 30 years ago in my constituency and what we thought about the future. The economy was dominated by mining, shipbuilding and heavy and light engineering. That is what we did. In many ways, we thought that it would go on.
	If I had predicted 30 years ago that we would lose shipbuilding, mining and other industries, while at the same time predicting that employment levels would be higher, people would not have believed it. If I had predicted that in 30 years' time my local area would produce 380,000 cars a year—remember the state of the British car industry and its reputation in the 1970s—and that some would be exported to Japan, not many people would have believed it. I would not have believed it. Yet that has been the pace of change in the past 30 years. Although it is difficult to predict the future, we can say that whatever the pace of change has been in the past 30 years, the pace of change in the next decade will be as quick.

Fraser Kemp: I certainly agree. When I talk to employers in the constituency, particularly in small and medium-sized firms, the one thing they constantly say is, "We need a work force that has constantly improving skills and levels of education." Employers recognise that if they are to be competitive within a global economy, they need a highly skilled work force. They realise that it is in their interests, to their benefit and for the profitability of their companies to ensure that we have that level of skills. Young people certainly need it.
	I wanted to mention only those three Bills. We should grasp the challenges of the future. We have lived through a period of change over the past 30 years, but the speed of change will quicken in the future. The train is leaving the station and we have a choice: we can either get on it or it will leave us behind. It is crucial that education and skills are taken seriously. We must get out there and sell that message. We must convince everyone—young people who have not yet entered the job market and those who are already in work. Adaptability—the ability to change jobs—is important. The tradition of being in the same employment for many years will disappear. Only if we sell education and skills and convince people that it is important will we have a reasonable chance of securing this country's long-term economic future.

Simon Hughes: We welcome the opportunity to discuss the programme for the coming year. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said on 11 July when the Prime Minister made his statement, it is right that we should move from legislation being cooked up in secret and announced on one day with a fanfare of trumpets—albeit that it had usually been leaked beforehand, with everyone pretending one thing was happening when it was not—to a system of honest and open discussion in which the Government say at the outset, "This is what we are thinking," and at the end saying, "This is our final view." That is a much better process. We welcome it, and will co-operate on it.
	We also welcome the honesty of the Leader of the House. This parliamentary year will operate from the arrival of the new Prime Minister at the end of June, so time is inevitably foreshortened. We understand and accept that. However, I made the point in an intervention that that should not mean that consultations should not be considered, and it will not be helpful if ideas are not taken on board. Flexibility will be required, as will hard work in October by civil servants and others employed in Departments, and Ministers must be honest about any good ideas that are made. We look forward to that.
	My position and that of my fellow Liberal Democrat Members can be summarised by saying— [Interruption.] Although none of them is present, as I have been their colleague for so many weeks, months and years, they trust me to speak for them. Our position is that Governments have often legislated in haste and introduced measures that we subsequently regret. Legislation, legislation, legislation is no substitute for good administration, but it has often been used as a substitute for it.
	I checked up on three Departments. In the past 10 years, we have had 11 Health Bills, four Health White Papers and seven Health Green Papers. We have had 11 Education Bills, nine Education White Papers and 11 Green Papers. We have also had 60 Home Office Bills. Much of that proposed legislation has not been thought through; much of it has been undone, as the Government have returned and said, "We want to change it"; and much of it has never been implemented—we pass it, but it never takes effect. My strongest plea to the Leader of the House and her colleagues is, please do not introduce any Bill that we do not absolutely need. Legislation should be the last resort, not the first resort. Usually, what is needed is administration—not new laws, but other steps.
	As the Leader of the House knows, one of the results of all the laws we have passed is that there are more than 3,000 new offences. That is not a healthy route to go down. The test I always apply is whether legislation increases liberty or authority. We have experienced 10 years in which the trend has been towards authority—by and large, although not without exception—and away from liberty. We need the trend to be in the other direction.
	My second test is whether legislation increases individual people's power and local power, rather than central power. There have been some very centralising proposals. The national health service is still one of the most centralised services in the world, and real devolution to local people and communities is desperately needed. One of the measures by which we will judge any legislative proposal is whether it gives local government a real opportunity to be influential and powerful—as opposed to it being said that that will happen but it not being the case. The same test applies to the devolved Administrations. The Government need to understand that in devolving government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they must actually devolve it. There are bits that they still hang on to, and so far they have not been willing to go down the road of a federal United Kingdom in which its four countries can have real autonomy in many of their own affairs.

Simon Hughes: I have a very clear view about that, too, which is that if a constitutional convention for the United Kingdom comes up with proposed changes to the constitutional structure of the relationship between the four countries—including, in my view, the way in which we elect our Parliament and what we do in this building—then, yes, that needs to be endorsed by a vote not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom. One clearly cannot alter the constitutional relationship in a big way without that change. That is why we supported, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, what happened after the constitutional conventions in Scotland, and in Wales and Northern Ireland when they moved, with the assent of their populations, to that conclusion.
	On the constitutional reform Bill, the Government need to go further. So far, we have seen proposals for a welcome transfer of powers, but as our previous debates have indicated, there is still a lot further to go. Pursuant to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and others, I hope that we will see the day when the business of Parliament is fixed by Parliament in consultation with Government, not by Government in consultation with Parliament. The agenda should be set here—it should of course accommodate what the Government came to power to implement—rather than the Government by grace and favour allowing Parliament opportunities to do other things.
	I observe that in the list of the other 22 Bills, the Government have made provision literally from the cradle to the grave. Indeed, in the words of a joke one might think of, they have made provision from the womb to the tomb. There is a Human Tissue and Embryos Bill at one end of the life cycle and a coroners Bill at the other, so all the seven stages of man—and woman—are catered for. To that extent, the list is certainly comprehensive. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made the good point, however, that none of this is new. I will not repeat the litany that she gave, but it is absolutely true that if ever we wanted evidence that this is a continuing Government, not a new one—with a Prime Minister who, although a new individual, is continuing the agenda—the evidence is here in front of us.
	I want to pick out one or two important implications. There are five Bills relating to the children, young people and education agenda, which is important. I share the view expressed a moment ago by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) that unless we have a child maintenance and other payments system that means that parents pay what they are meant to pay, all the shouting over the past 10 years about the Child Support Agency will have been in vain. That system has failed, bluntly, and it needs to work. We all have constituents who are the victims of the system not working.
	Children in care, which is still a hugely important issue, is also on the agenda. Ministers will know that many of the people who end up in prison have been in care at some stage in their lives; there is a sad link. Many people are still waiting for adoption. We do not have adequate fostering or enough people to foster. We need to ensure that those children who, through no fault of their own, end up in care get a much better quality of care, so that the risk that they will go wrong later in life is much reduced.
	In relation to education and skills, the borough that the Leader of the House and I represent—like the area represented by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East—had a tradition, certainly on its northern side, of people working in the docks, but the docks are no longer there and the education needs have changed. However, I hope that we do not go blindly in the direction of academic education for everyone until the age of 18. Many of my constituents want vocational education, and they can benefit from experience of the workplace at the top end of primary school. They benefit from doing paid work at weekends when they are in their middle years of secondary school. They want to be able to understand the world of work, and some of them have never had the experience of anybody in their home working. It is therefore important that education and skills are not seen as being solely about academic attainment. We need skills upgrades, but we also need to train people for practical things, such as constructing buildings so that we do not have to import people—as London is doing now—to do it. We could use our own young people to do the construction work for not only the Olympics, but all over Britain.
	I know that the Leader of the House has always been vocal about youth services and I am glad that the Government have been able to find more money for youth services through the Unclaimed Assets Bill. We will have to check whether it is entirely compatible with human rights legislation, given that someone else left that money in the bank, but we need more investment in youth services. Everybody now recognises that, and if the Bill is a quick fix way to do that, in partnership with local communities, it will be a good thing to do.
	On housing and planning, there will be three Bills. One is, sadly, insufficient and the other two on planning are controversial. On the Housing and Regeneration Bill, we do not yet see the mechanisms for delivering the social housing, at a cost people can afford, to rescue Britain from the shortage of housing, terrible debts, high mortgages and crippling rents outside the social housing sector. My borough is not untypical and we have waiting lists of thousands for social housing. We had a statement on housing the other day and there was an almost deafening silence from Ministers on council housing, which appears to be still off the agenda. Many people believe that council housing is a good thing. Many people like living in council housing and believe that councils can be more responsive than housing associations, housing trusts, arm's length management organisations or tenant management organisations. I hope that the Government have heard the message loud and clear from authorities and parties around the country that what is now called the fourth option—the right of councils to say, as mine is doing, that they will not sell off their housing stock or set up an ALMO—should be an option for every council, certainly in England.

Simon Hughes: We certainly do not want to build poor-quality housing, and the old Parker Knoll standards were good. I applaud the fact that the Government want a decent homes initiative to make sure that standards are upgraded, and I am not arguing that councils should build frequently and build cheap. On the contrary, I am arguing that they should build to last, and the really good housing that people like to live in is housing that is built to last. We must adopt that approach again.
	I absolutely understand that we must not compromise on standards, but the big question is whether there is a real commitment to putting in the finance and giving councils the power of general competence. That freedom would mean that they are not told what to do by central Government.

Simon Hughes: I am sorry: I did hear that question, but did not deal with it. In the end, the quality test is applied by the electorate, with the help of the district auditor and all the performance standards for local government that are now carried out regularly. Much better peer-group analysis is available, but the quality test that the hon. Gentleman seeks comes when local people decide whether their council is good or bad, and whether it is run well or badly.
	I turn now to the planning gain supplement Bill and the planning reform Bill. The idea that big planning decision will be taken by a quango and not by accountable councils or Ministers is not one that I favour. The quango can advise, if that is what the Government want, but big planning decisions must come with political accountability and they cannot be taken out of the political forum.
	In addition, the current system works well. The proposal means that large portions of the planning gain money—section 106 money—can be hoovered to central Government for redistribution. That is very problematic and, although the Prime Minister has said that it is to go out for consultation, I hope that the Bill that is eventually considered by this House contains a different approach that respects local autonomy.

Simon Hughes: That is exactly what I was arguing. The summary of the Government's draft legislative programme states that the purpose of the planning reform Bill is to
	"Streamline and improve planning including introducing a single consents regime for major infrastructure projects, establishing an independent infrastructure planning commission".
	That is a quango, not a Minister. I am in favour of big schemes being decided by Ministers. Yesterday, for example, the Secretary of State for Transport gave her approval to Thameslink. I do not like some of the implications for my patch, but I can have a go at her, question her and call her to account. We need to have that sort of system for planning.
	On local transport, we are concerned that the Government are forcing local councils to run road pricing pilots as a sort of bribe to get the schemes that they want, whereas we believe that a national pricing scheme would be a better way forward. We would also like a national pricing scheme to be introduced for lorries. Other countries operate that system, and it seems to work well.
	Moreover, greater powers over bus regulation must have the local accountability for which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) called. That is not as huge an issue in London as it is in rural and suburban Britain. Public services may be contracted out to private tenderers, but they must be subject to democracy. For that to work, we need an accountability that really works, rather than leaving everyone involved to say, "Nothing to do with me, guv."
	On work and pensions, there is a proposal for an employment simplification Bill. In parenthesis, I welcome simpler text in legislation and I seriously hope that eventually all Bills will be readable and understandable by the public. As Ministers know, in Committee, I regularly make the plea that Bills be written in a logical order, so that definitions are not followed by the substance; the Bill should start with a statement of what it is about and then amplify it. The issue is serious. If what we do is to be understood, Bills should not just be readable by lawyers who are paid to do the job.
	On employment simplification, there is one grievance that I hope will be addressed. At present, someone with an exemplary record—perhaps for 25 years—can be summarily dismissed after one breach of good conduct, which does not have to be violence or dishonesty. We need to consider restoring a yellow and red card system in employment that does not give such great powers to employers.
	I could highlight many of the proposals, but my final selection is the measure on health and social care provision. I welcome the general proposals to integrate the various regulatory and supervisory bodies. My constituency experience, like that of other Members, is that in this rich country we do not yet provide an adequate standard of care for our old and our vulnerable. Too often, the local and national press describe how people are abused and exploited. We need well qualified staff, effective regulation and effective action when things go wrong, so that there are not repeated occasions when we say, "Oh that was terrible, those people were treated so badly".
	Today, there were statements about counter-terrorism and emergency powers and I shall not repeat our arguments about them. The draft legislation process is a good one and we shall take part in it constructively, but the test of whether it enhances the credibility of the Government and Parliament is that the Government listen, respond and, to return to my starting point, legislate only when nothing else will do—when the general mood in the House is that legislation is the right way to proceed after showing us the draft, listening to our answers and eventually agreeing the best and shortest text.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am very much aware of the arguments that were made in the House. In fact, I think—although my recollection may be wrong—that I was in the House for that debate at the same time as the hon. Gentleman. I think that we might even have intervened on each other. At this stage I do not want to argue for or against the planning gain supplement. I just want to make sure that the same principle as will apply in England—that the purpose of any planning gain tax is to assist local communities to develop their infrastructure—will also apply in Scotland. If the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who seemed to be getting the endorsement of the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), means that that is also the policy of the Scottish Executive, I welcome that commitment and I am sure that colleagues in Scotland will take that on board in debates in the Scottish Parliament.
	Flooding is an issue that has been at the forefront of all our minds over the last few days. The flooding reminds us that new housing has to take account of changes in the environment and should be constructed so as to ensure that it is energy-efficient and that the building sector can contribute to the reduction of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions.
	That brings me to another issue: energy consumption by households and fuel poverty—an issue of particular relevance to parts of the UK where the climate is not always as warm as it is elsewhere. Whatever else happens, it is likely that energy prices are, in the long run, going to continue to go up—as a result of market trends and perhaps also of packages of measures designed to encourage reduced energy use. We all know that for some householders, rises in energy prices have led to more fuel poverty. Although there has been a drop in energy prices this year, the overall trend in energy prices has been, and will no doubt continue to be, upwards.
	The Government have done a lot to tackle fuel poverty, but it is essential that vulnerable consumers are protected against the effects of the increases, both through financial measures and by helping to make their homes more energy efficient. In the energy White Paper, the Government said, in effect, that they expected energy companies to do more to protect vulnerable consumers and that if they did not, the Government would consider making them do so by bringing forward legislation—for example, to promote the wider use of social tariffs by energy companies.
	Some energy companies have risen to the challenge of recognising the social needs of more vulnerable consumers, but not all have done so. I hope that when the Government come to assess the degree to which the energy companies as a whole have responded to the call set out in the energy White Paper, they will decide whether there is a case for introducing in the energy Bill that we are promised later in the year proposals to ensure that all energy companies meet the needs of consumers who have suffered from the effects of rising energy prices.
	I want to turn to two other areas of policy related to the environment. I was delighted to understand from the comments made by the Leader of the House that the marine Bill will be brought forward in draft form as part of the legislative programme. A long-running campaign, launched by WWF in particular, has had a lot of support. It highlights the fact that both wildlife and our citizens rely on a healthy and productive marine environment for their future well-being. There is a need for marine legislation. I know that marine legislation is a complex area, and the UK Government and the devolved Administrations have important issues to resolve between themselves, but I hope that draft legislation is brought forward at an early stage, so that the definitive Bill can be introduced soon after that.
	Another environmental issue that is moving higher and higher up the political agenda is the Government's proposal for a Climate Change Bill. I am glad that it has been confirmed that the Bill will be in next year's legislative programme, and I hope that it will be brought forward at an early date. The Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill had a thorough discussion on the proposals in the draft Bill. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I have been members of the Committee, so she knows that there has been thorough consultation, and because of that, there is an opportunity to bring forward the Bill at an early stage; I hope that that will happen.
	When the Joint Committee examined the draft Bill, two things came home to me: first, I realised the overwhelming importance of taking action, and secondly I realised how pioneering the Bill is. In the Committee's public sessions, comments from people in China, California and the European Union made it clear that our Climate Change Bill is likely to encourage other countries to follow suit. The Bill is a good example of the Government showing real international leadership, and I certainly welcome that. That is why I hope that the Bill will be introduced at an early stage in the Government's programme for the coming year.
	The Joint Committee's public discussions underlined how potentially radical the draft Bill is as a driver for influencing and changing Government policy, and ensuring action across all areas of Government to make sure that we really succeed in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Even now, I am not sure whether everyone who supported the introduction of the Bill realises its potential power; it is an important measure. All credit should go to Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid and the other organisations that campaigned last year for Bill to be introduced. The Bill could be a powerful driver of change to Government policy and to the way in which we organise government and society. It is important to underline that it is not just the Bill that should be brought forward at an early date; the climate change committee envisaged in the draft Bill should be established as early as possible, too.
	As well as undertaking an important advisory role, the climate change committee will need to help to make the case for the radical measures that will undoubtedly be necessary if we are to meet the objectives of the Climate Change Bill. I hope that that committee will be set up quickly once the Bill becomes law, and I hope that the shadow committee, which the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested would be set up soon, will be established very quickly. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House gave some indication, today or later, of the possible timetable for the establishment of that shadow committee.
	In the coming year, I would like the Government to make sure that the objective of tackling climate change is a theme that is reflected not just in the Climate Change Bill, important though that is, but throughout the entire legislative programme, the entire Queen's Speech, and everything that the Government do. That needs to be done, because the challenge of climate change not only requires action across Government, but requires us to send a message that it is a theme running through all that the Government do. We need to send the public the clear message that we politicians are serious when we say that tackling climate change is a top priority. That is essential, because we all know that tackling climate change requires action not just by Governments—both ours and those of other countries—but by individuals. If we are to persuade the public to make their own personal contribution to tackling climate change, we have to show them that we parliamentarians, and the Government, mean what we say when we bring forward our policies, legislation and measures.

John Bercow: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). I shall focus my remarks tonight on issues that will be of particular concern to more than half the population—namely, to women.
	It is thoroughly timely that the House should have the opportunity, thanks to the legislative programme, to review the arrangements for assisted reproduction and embryo research. That opportunity will be provided by the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. That is good news. There will be different opinions, as properly there should be, and those opinions should be given expression in the debates in the House.
	I make no secret of the fact that I have always been on the side of what I call the progressives, in the sense that I reject the notion of a doctrinal opposition to embryo research. I take a pragmatic view, an instrumental view, an empiricist view that if benefits can flow from such research, the effect of which can be to mitigate the effects of congenital diseases or disorders or to remove them altogether, we should welcome that. In the deliberations that lie ahead on the Bill, I hope that the Government and right hon. and hon. Members will be significantly influenced and informed in their consideration by the body of expert scientific and in some cases medical evidence that will be presented.
	However, it is an open secret that there are many people who believe that the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill is an appropriate vehicle for another review by the House—a review of the law relating to abortion. I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of some considerable pride—and I am certainly not a Government lawyer, but my understanding is that the Government lawyers have advised Ministers that they would not be able safely to resist amendments on the subject of abortion in the context of the Bill. That is to say, to seek to remove them or prevent their discussion or debate on grounds of scope would almost certainly fail in legal terms.
	I have heard it floated that the Government are prepared to consider such matters, and that they recognise that legally they would not be able, in parliamentary terms, to resist such matters. What I have not heard is a confirmation of that highly salient point on the Floor of the House. If the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons is able to confirm when she winds up the debate that what I have read in the popular prints is correct, I would greatly welcome that. There are differences of opinion on the matter, but it is right that if there is a legislative vehicle in the programme, an opportunity to consider these issues should be provided.
	For my own part, I believe that the vast disparity in the availability of abortion services across the country from one area to another is a source of concern and an occasion for protest. If we look back to the latest year for which reliable figures are available, 2001, there appears to have been something of a lottery in terms both of the funding of abortion and of the waiting times to secure it. In 2001 in Coventry, 96 per cent. of abortions were funded by the national health service—lucky people in need of or making a request for an abortion in that part of the west midlands. If, however, a woman were so relatively unfortunate as to live in Kingston or Richmond, the chance of securing a publicly funded abortion in that year would have been only 50 per cent.
	If we are to have a national health service, despite the avowed religion of localism that seems too frequently to be professed by members of all parties these days, I hope it would be conceded and, indeed, proudly proclaimed that there should be a commonality of provision across the country. We either believe in the availability of an abortion service to women, on certain terms and conditions, or we do not. If we believe in it, as I confess that I passionately do and always have done, these marked differences—this postcode lottery, in effect—should not exist. I want that state of affairs to change.
	I referred to the differential in funding, but there are also marked differences in how long people have to wait to secure an abortion. In 2001, someone who lived in north-east Lincolnshire might be quite impressed by the figures, because in that part of the country 79 per cent. of abortions were undertaken before 10 weeks had elapsed, whereas someone who lived in Great Yarmouth might be considerably disappointed, not to say horrified, by the fact that the figure was as low as 26 per cent. That simply is not right. We must make a public policy judgment in this House of Commons as to what we think appropriate.
	I am not, as the House will be relieved to learn and you will be pleased to discover, Mr. Deputy Speaker, inclined to dilate tonight on all the issues relating to the potential amendment of the law on abortion. That titillating opportunity will doubtless present itself at a later stage in the course of the consideration of the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. I would, however, like to say something specifically about a crucial challenge for the Government and the House concerning early abortion.
	The vast majority of abortions in this country are, and should be, undertaken early, but we need to do a great deal more to improve access to early and safe abortion for women who have decided that that is what they want. I put it to the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House that it is vital, in terms of the scope of the Bill and the time allowed for debate on potential amendments when it is forthcoming, that we should have a chance to consider all the germane issues.
	For example, I cannot for the life of me see any justification, in 2007, for the arcane—dare I say it, almost antediluvian—requirement that a woman who seeks an abortion should have to obtain the signatures of two doctors. That might sound like a prosaic requirement that can be easily fulfilled, but that is often not so. Doctors will sometimes say, "No, you'd better go elsewhere; it's not convenient for me to see you at the moment", or "There's quite a long waiting list in this area." All sorts of difficulties can arise. If the basic will of Parliament is that women should be able to access abortion, they should not be put in the invidious position of having to traipse around, possibly in a condition of considerable personal and even physical distress, to access what should be their legal entitlement and what is certainly—I believe that right hon. and hon. Members would judge—their moral due. The "two doctors" requirement should be removed, but we should at least have a chance to table, debate and vote on an amendment to that effect when the legislation is considered.
	Similarly, there should not be long delays. If we are to have targets in other fields, why not in this case? I would suggest a target of 72 hours from the time that the woman makes the approach to request the abortion to the time that the procedure is undertaken. At the very least, it should not be more than a week. We should not in a modern, decent, civilised democratic society entertain the idea that women faced with a very difficult situation, and possibly having to make a harrowing decision, should then have to wait for week after week, and possibly longer, before they can give effect to the decision that they have made perfectly properly, honourably and in all good conscience.
	There are other oddities about the current fusty law, one of which is the requirement that the procedure take place in rather prescriptively specified locations. I believe that modern law should be rather more flexible than that. The principle that should govern the amendment of the law to localise provision and provide for a range of community settings in which abortion can take place should simply be this: clinical governance and quality assurance procedures should be comparable to those that apply to any other medical procedure that an individual might undertake within the national health service. I do not see why abortion should be set as a class apart—much more difficult to obtain than other operations and far more difficult to access, logistically or possibly even geographically.
	Such considerations must be looked at in the context of the law, as should the suggestion, which I think is sound, that we widen the range of people who can undertake the procedure. I see no good reason why qualified nurses who are perfectly capable of undertaking the abortion procedure should not be empowered to do so in law.
	Whatever hon. or right hon. Members listening to this debate think about my views on the subject, I hope that people feel it right that the House of Commons should consider such matters—a very long time after it last did so. I have been in the House since May 1997. To my knowledge, there have been no debates on substantive legislation on this subject during the 10 years and two months I have been here. There have been ten-minute rule motions put forward on the issue, but that is a wholly unsatisfactory basis on which to seek to determine the future of public policy on this subject.
	I hope that the Government will be open-minded on the matter. They might not want to whip their own side; I rather imagine that on the Conservative Benches there will be a free vote. As far as I am concerned, all votes are free and I tend to do what I want anyway. I am not overly preoccupied whatever any Whip might think about these matters. I hope, however, that there will be votes, and an opportunity for decent debate leading up to them.
	Secondly, and very much more briefly, I did not expect a single equality Bill in the draft legislative programme, but I confess that I think that there is a compelling case for one. After all, we have had the discrimination law review, and we have a single equality body. Many people—not all—think that a logical corollary of the creation of a single equality body is the creation of a single equality Act, the purpose and effect of which would be to simplify, synthesise and distil all other anti-discrimination legislation into a single corpus of law that would be easier for citizens to access and more readily understandable by the public and private agencies responsible for adhering to it.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman and I can join forces in a campaign for simplification. I say three cheers to that.
	Let me make it clear that a duty on the private sector to attack the principal causes of the pay gap between men and women would be a good feature of the Bill for which I am calling. I have pontificated on that issue many a time and oft during the past few years in debates in Westminster Hall and in questions to the Minister for Women. A duty has been placed on public authorities, and that is important, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is persistent and, in some cases, severe discrimination in the private sector as well. Of course, we have to be careful not to overload the system, not to achieve a counter-productive result and not to frighten business, but if we know that there is serious discrimination, we have a responsibility to face up to it and be prepared to do something about it.
	That discrimination takes several forms: in pay; on the ground of pregnancy; through occupational segregation; and—whether deliberate or inadvertent—against people who have caring responsibilities. The insertion in such a Bill of a positive duty on the private sector, suitably calibrated to take account of what private companies can bear in the short, medium and long term, would make a great deal of sense and create equality between the public and private sectors.
	The final issue that I wish to consider—simplification—will again warm the cockles of the heart of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The Government have championed their employment simplification Bill. My understanding is that at least part of its purpose is to bolster the machinery for enforcing the national minimum wage. I said at the outset that I wanted to focus on subjects that were of particular interest to women. Let us not forget that, in 2006, 870,000 women benefited from the increase in the national minimum wage. Nevertheless, it is striking and salutary that no fewer than 202,000 women did not get the national minimum wage to which they were entitled. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. It is not only unfair to those women but corrodes the principle of the rule of law and the effect of the will of Parliament. In 2004, approximately 1,798 cases demonstrated that people did not get their entitlement, but only 62 enforcement notices and no penalty notices were issued. It is important that several criteria are fulfilled if the employment simplification Bill is to deliver effectively for women.
	First, we need to publicise much more widely people's exact entitlements. Many people, especially those who operate in the twilight zone of low paid and high pressure jobs, will not know what is their due. Secondly, there needs to be a much more proactive enforcement policy if people are to get their due rather than be denied it. Thirdly, we need a robust regime of penalties to discourage rogue employers and encourage good practice.
	All the matters that I have mentioned are potentially valuable, on an industrial scale, to more than half the population of this country. I reserve judgment on the last item, because I do not know whether the employment simplification Bill will work as the Government intend, and as I hope that it would operate. If they take account of the sort of points that I am making, I hope that the measure will command support from all parties, because it would make a great difference to the lives of many highly vulnerable people in this country.
	The three issues are important and I hope that they will be tackled to the benefit of the country.

Lyn Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). He is always eloquent and I concurred with much of what he said, especially about reproductive health.
	It is a great privilege to speak in the debate. We are considering a welcome and positive process. I agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that it has the potential to be excellent and I hope that I can use it today and in years to come on behalf of my constituents.
	I want to talk about three things. The first is the housing and regeneration Bill, about which I am especially excited because the pressure on housing in London is extreme and my borough is no exception. In Newham, housing benefit spending is currently £245 million a year. Nearly one third—£67 million—is spent on keeping homeless people in temporary accommodation. It will be a measure of our success when that is reduced through the provision of affordable housing.
	The expansion of affordable housing will provide an opportunity for my local council—a good local council—to ensure that much-needed social homes are built. I further welcome the commitment to increase the provision of affordable housing in east London and the UK as a whole, to ensure that young people who are not fortunate enough to inherit property can afford to buy their first home. There are so many young people in my constituency who see homes priced out of their reach and for whom the opportunity to buy is a vague dream for some time in the future. I hope that adequate levels of social housing will also dampen down the inflationary tendencies that have, I fear, made London the European capital for housing inequality.
	I remind the House that the waiting time in my area for a four-bedroom property is more than 13 years. There are families on waiting lists who will never receive that home, because they will have grown and family members will have flown before it becomes a possibility. Let us not misunderstand what that means to those families. They are often shunted from home to home, as the lease finishes. That means that they do not have the stability that comes from making a community where they live and that the children might have to move schools or travel large distances, with long journey times, to get to school. That does not make for a community.
	Moving home is also an expensive business, as many of us in the House know. When people are poor and in temporary accommodation, often paying for their rent out of their wages, which do not meet those needs, the moving costs on top of that add costs, problems and stresses to families already under pressure. The waiting list in my community in 2006 was 29,574, which is equivalent to the entire population of San Marino—I thank my researchers for that one.
	There is also something to be said for not putting all our faith in supply. I would certainly welcome measures, which might be under consideration, to cool the overheated buy-to-let market, which has helped both to ratchet up the cost of temporary accommodation, at such an extreme cost to the Exchequer, and to decrease the affordability of housing for ordinary working families, above all in the capital. That is without mentioning the concurrent social difficulties experienced through unsuitably located households in multiple occupancy. I come from an Olympic borough, where we now have a population of migrant workers, who often live in small homes, with many to a room. That is causing stresses in local communities, as buy-to-let properties are inhabited in such a highly multiple-occupancy fashion—if that makes sense and is good English.
	I have lost count of the number of complaints from constituents about absentee landlords, which stems from the huge increase in buy-to-let properties in Newham over the past decade. The high cost of rents in the private rented sector and the resulting overcrowding of properties by tenants often compounds those problems. More importantly, in the long term it might prove difficult to maintain West Ham's strong sense of community cohesion, of which I am immensely proud. Although I accept that the private rented sector provides much-needed flexibility and choice for those who cannot purchase a home or do not wish to, I would welcome moves to ensure that our dream of building mixed sustainable communities is not hampered by the sheer extent of buy-to-let properties in particular areas.
	With a significant prospect of housing gain as a consequence of the Olympics, my constituents need rock-solid assurances that our expectation of more affordable housing as a result of the regeneration of the Olympic boroughs meets the needs of the families currently on the waiting list. There is a real fear that the properties that will be built in Stratford and along the regeneration belt in the Lea valley will be one and two-bedroom properties, which will not meet the needs of our growing families, particularly those who have been waiting on the housing list for more than 13 years for a four-bedroom property in the area.
	A second theme of great importance for the people in my local community relates to the proposed counter-terrorism Bill, which includes a number of new proposals aimed at tackling the continuing threat from criminals bent on causing indiscriminate damage and death. When we strive to engage our communities in tackling this threat, however, it is vital that a meaningful consultation is undertaken in all our communities on proposals such as stop and question and the extension of the limit of detention without charge, to ensure that alienation and disillusionment are not the unintended result of such moves.
	The wonderfully diverse communities of West Ham want to work together to defeat this threat and to contribute constructively towards its defeat. They will therefore strongly welcome the consultation on the new security and anti-terrorism measures, and it is my genuine belief that, through honest and open consultation on the legislation, we can help to avoid community isolation and alienation and build stronger cohesive communities in the UK. I am sure that the many diverse communities in my constituency will be keen to play as constructive a role as possible in this important debate, and I welcome the Government's decision to give them the opportunity to do so.
	My third theme, like the others, seeks to strengthen the sustainability of the communities in my constituency. The Green Paper, "In work, better off: next steps to full employment", has already appeared and attracted some comment. I applaud the commitment to encourage long-term benefit claimants to sustain and make progress in employment, particularly through strengthening the skills base of people who have not worked for some time. Despite recent falls in the probability of leaving work, lone parents are still almost twice as likely as non-lone parents to leave their jobs. One in five lone parents who leave income support return to it within six months, and more than a quarter do so within a year. One third do so within two years, and almost two fifths within three years.
	I fear that one of the reasons for that is that, when women are encouraged to go into work, the costs that they will face—including travel and child care costs—along with the reduction in their benefits are not properly assessed before they make the move. Having conducted a focus group—for want of a better term—with local communities on these issues, it has become clear that, when women leave employment in those circumstances, they feel demoralised because they have not been able to sustain a job. That is bad enough, but they also leave with heavy debts. They have often been forced out of employment because they could no longer afford to work and to live. That is particularly an issue in London, where it is related to the housing and child care costs. We need to ensure that such women receive the very best assistance before they take the step of leaving benefit in order to obtain work.
	Lisa Harker's report into child poverty at the end of last year projected that, if the rate of job exits among lone parents was reduced to that of non-lone parents, the Government's target of 70 per cent. employment could be met without any increase in the number of lone parents entering work. While skills and support are vital, messages from the Government also play an important part. Once additional skills have been achieved, with real effort and at some personal cost, the pay rise can be gained and the lone parent is ready to enjoy the fruits of their hard work. However, for some of those women, the loss of help with child care costs, rent and tax credits can mean that they face what I would call a marginal tax rate as high as 96 per cent.
	At the centre of the marginal tax rate is housing benefit. I am bombarded with evidence about how it combines with other sources of income to create a poverty trap for those already in low-paid work. At the centre of that is a 65p in the pound withdrawal rate of housing benefit as income increases. As the Hills report stated, a couple with two children paying a typical private rent of £120 a week—frankly, if £120 a week was the price people were paying for their rent in West Ham, they would think that all their Christmases had come at once, but let us stay with the Hills report—would, as a result of reduced benefit and tax credits and a higher rate of national insurance, gain only £23 if their earnings rose from £100 to £400. For those in temporary accommodation with high rents paid through housing benefit—in my constituency, two-bedroom flats can go for more than £1,000 a month—those effects extend to even higher levels. If we are to make serious progress with making aspiration pay in the UK, I believe that the housing benefit regime merits further and urgent investigation.
	Let me reiterate, as I draw to my conclusion, that this legislative programme is ambitious and forward looking. It proposes measures to tackle the most pressing issues facing Britain as a society, as an economy and as a nation. Such measures can only be improved by this inaugural opportunity to debate the draft legislative programme in advance.

Alex Salmond: Let me develop my points for a few seconds before I give way to my old university friend from Edinburgh.
	I was saying that if Members thought that they could influence the Government's legislative programme, they would be crammed into these Benches. The fact that that has not happened suggests to me that, as yet, the Government have not persuaded people that this innovation is meaningful in respect of influencing the Government programme. This debate compares very poorly with a debate on the Gracious Speech, for example, which we would expect to be conducted at a sensible time. Perhaps the Government would like to follow the innovation of the Scottish Parliament and time such a debate, if they truly believe that it is important, at a sensible hour. The Government are going to have to do a great deal more if they are to convince Members that this process is meaningful as opposed to some early window dressing on the part of the new Administration.

Alex Salmond: I welcome the innovation, but to note the poor attendance of the debate is no more than a fact. There is 33 per cent. of the Scottish National party's representation in the Chamber this evening. If there were 33 per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's party's representation, they would be flooding across the Benches. If there were 33 per cent. of the Scottish Liberal party's representation, it would have at least another one or perhaps two. Statistics are useful when we all know—and each one of us does know—that if Members of this House thought that this was an important constitutional innovation, they would be here to influence the Government.

Alex Salmond: Unfortunately, it is down to timing. If only the hon. Gentleman had not been called before me then perhaps more Members might have flooded into the Chamber to hear this climax of the debate. To be called provocative by him is one of the great phrases that makes me miss this place. It is the pot calling the kettle black, and it is extraordinary to hear it from the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have such enormous affection.
	The Government say that the constitutional reform Bill will be a centrepiece of their legislative programme. It will not surprise the Minister to learn that I want to devote a few remarks to that Bill and the Green Paper, and to say how it could be substantially improved. Last week, I was sitting at the British-Irish Council. Some 20 people were around the table representing two sovereign Governments, three devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, and three island groups. Out of those 20, two were members of the Labour party—the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There were no members of the Conservative party, although the Secretary of State used to be. There were also no members of the Liberal Democrats. That was the result of a self-denying ordinance, as it were, because uniquely the Liberal Democrats have turned down Administration in three Parliaments in the space of the past two months. They turned down the chance of sharing Government and sharing power in Scotland. They then turned down the chance of sharing power in Wales, and I understand—at least I read in the papers—that they turned down a role in Government in this place as well. That has resulted in the unique phenomenon of a political party denying itself a role in the British-Irish Council.
	None the less, the point remains that out of 20 people representing the various Governments around these islands, only two were members of the governing party in this place; none were members of the Conservative party; and none were members of the Liberal Democrats—in other words, the three parties that dominate this Chamber are in a tiny minority in terms of the configuration of the political geography that has arrived around these islands.  [Interruption.] I know that it is difficult for some hon. Members in this place to understand, but there have been changes in government: in Northern Ireland, where a Government have come into being; in Scotland, where simultaneously I am in government and in opposition, which is an interesting process; and in Wales, where there has been a fundamental change in the configuration of the Government. That is a huge change in the political geography of these islands, and I saw nothing in the Government's Green Paper which persuaded me that they have caught up with that reality.
	For example, way back in 1999 it was envisaged that there would be an organisation of joint ministerial committees to enable the Westminster Government, Ministers and Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, hopefully, the Assembly in Northern Ireland to engage in dialogue on issues of mutual concern. Those joint ministerial committees, certainly in plenary session, have not met since 2002. In terms of the sub-committees, which are part of that process, only one strand of four sub-committees has met over the past five years, and that is the sub-committee on Europe. An arrangement that was brought into being—presumably, I suppose, because it envisaged a situation in which the same party would not be in government in Westminster as was in government in Scotland or Wales—has fallen into total disrepair. It is important that that instrument, or something like it, is brought back into being very quickly. It is disappointing that the Government Green Paper does not address the nature and evolution of the constitutional changes that have already happened and the mechanisms to cope with them.
	Other matters are also not addressed in the Green Paper. There is no mention of the British-Irish Council and its potential development. There is no mention of the Act of Settlement, despite the Green Paper's explicit desire to break down barriers to inclusion within "British society". There is no mention of the repeal of that Act, which has institutionalised discrimination against many sections of our current society—incidentally, the Scottish Parliament on one occasion unanimously suggested that that Act should be consigned to the dustbin of history. The Green Paper is also almost silent on the West Lothian question and the disquiet felt by many English MPs and a considerable number of people in England at the absence of a forum in which to address specifically English matters and legislation. I do not think that that will be adequately coped with by a system of regional Select Committees. As I have said, there is nothing on the practical mechanisms for improving the functioning of devolved arrangements. It appears that the UK Government want a new relationship between Government and citizen but that that does not extend to examining the relationships between central and devolved Government.
	There is a huge constitutional conservatism in the Green Paper. Let me illustrate that by quoting a few phrases. It is stated in paragraph 122:
	"Parliament stands at the apex of the political system, the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom...a major symbol of what it means to be British".
	The principle that
	"devolution does not cede sovereignty"
	is also restated.
	Yet only recently a quite different view was held by many concerned people in Scotland. A statement of 30 March 1989 declares:
	"We, gathered...do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all of our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount".
	That was signed by every Labour MP with one exception: Tam Dalyell. It was signed by the current Prime Minister. Since then, there has almost been a retrenchment into a constitutional conservatism with the window-dressing of change.
	Regardless of where Members stand on the future of the constitution, it is absurd that the UK Government wish to have a "national conversation" when only they are seen as having total and complete certainty that the current constitutional position is the right one, maintained as
	"the apex of the political system, the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom...a major symbol of what it means to be British".
	It is odd that measures which are presumably designed to empower the citizen make an assumption about the attitudes of those citizens and almost ignore the substantial political changes that are taking place. That is exemplified by the configuration of the British-Irish Council.
	There is throughout the Green Paper an obsession to forge a sense of Britishness as a conceptual framework for legislative changes to follow. That is highlighted as a key objective. That concept is fundamentally out of date. It more reflects a sense of confusion in respect of what might be politically advantageous for a Scottish Prime Minister seeking electoral success in England than the reality of modern Scotland and modern Wales—and even, to some extent, modern Northern Ireland.
	I do not agree that the Prime Minister should try to mask his Scottishness in order to convince England of his worth. I have a much higher view of English voters. I think that the Prime Minister will win or lose the next UK general election not on his nationality, but on his policies. The difficulty he faces is in getting to grips with the fact that we now have a multi-identity state. In Scotland, there is a resurgent Scottish identity and, crucially, that identity includes diversity.
	A very interesting study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year, conducted by the universities of St. Andrews and Stirling, surveyed attitudes toward Scottishness of young Asian Scots. The study showed that young Asian Scots felt more Scottish than their white counterparts, because they felt that Scottishness was an inclusive identity. I doubt whether another society in western Europe could make that claim at the present moment. It is an important finding, which got relatively little publicity in the Scottish press. I am certain that if the finding had been otherwise, it would have got major publicity. It is a finding that makes me proud to be Scottish, and which should give the UK Government cause to reflect on the dangers of looking for identity that does not allow reflective diversity. Some of what is in the Green Paper seems to suggest that the Government are moving down that road.
	The Prime Minister's attempt to contrive a new-found sense of Britishness is deeply misguided. The only thing that is absolutely clear is that, after some time of trying, he has been unsuccessful thus far in his attempt. I have no doubt that if anyone in these islands is able to buck the trends that have been taking place in Scotland and elsewhere for a generation and more, it is the current Prime Minister. However, this quest for Britishness—at the very time when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are moving on a perhaps different path and exploring new avenues of expression, government and society—seems to me backward-looking and misguided.
	I want to draw a contrast between the approach of the Green Paper—which should have been consultative, as Green Papers usually are—and that of the Scottish Government's forthcoming White Paper. Rather than dictating the answers, my Government will champion the natural evolution of Scottish democracy, and consider sincerely and openly the spectrum of powers that will inevitably flow from this place to the Scottish Parliament. Let me welcome in particular the indication from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) this evening that he is in favour of a referendum at some point to advance such arguments. I do not know whether that was inadvertent, but it is substantial progress in terms of the dialogue taking place in Scotland. So we will approach our White Paper on the constitution with the conviction that our case for an independent Scotland is the right one, but that the process will also involve genuinely listening to other people's ideas.
	The Prime Minister has fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Much of Scotland is relaxed about its identity and its future. It is a country comfortable with the inevitability of further constitutional change—change that is bound to repatriate further powers to Scotland. My submission this evening is that Scotland has moved on, Wales is moving on, and Northern Ireland is moving on; it is time that England moved on, as well.

Shailesh Vara: The Leader of the House referred to the fact that all Members had been sent a copy of the booklet. It is important to put it on the record that I received a letter from her this morning, dated 20 July, enclosing the booklet. The same is true of a number of colleagues to whom I have spoken. The letter says:
	"I am keen that Members have the fullest possible chance to consider the Government's proposals in advance of the debate on Wednesday 25 July. I therefore enclose the Command Paper, 'The Governance of Britain—The Government's Draft Legislative Programme'."
	All present will agree that in order to have had a proper debate today, it would have been much more helpful to have received the letter and enclosed booklet several days earlier.
	This is not the first time that the office of the Leader of the House has given information for debate at the very last minute. Last week, there was a discussion in Committee of the remit of the Leader of the House, and Committee members did not receive the information that was to be discussed until the morning of that Committee's sitting. I respectfully suggest that the Leader of the House take note and, in the interests of protecting the welfare and concerns of all hon. Members, rectify the situation in future.
	The distinguishing feature of the debate is the sheer audacity of the Government in pretending that they are presenting new policies in their draft legislative programme, when they clearly are not. I suggest that the Government take note of the words of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), who will write Labour's next election manifesto. Earlier this week, in an interview with  The Guardian, he said with reference to the new Prime Minister taking over:
	"It requires being very candid about what has gone wrong".
	As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have shown a reluctance towards such candour, let me assist them.
	The brutal truth is that the Government have had a decade to deal with the issues that they speak of in the draft legislative programme, and they have failed to do so. The programme gives new meaning to the word recycling. It is a programme of recycled material. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) eloquently made that point when she listed all 23 Bills that have been previously mentioned in the public domain.
	When the Prime Minister spoke of his new measures for building more houses, he should have qualified his words by saying, "As I have previously mentioned, in 1994, 1998, 2005 and 2006." On education, with reference to young people staying on in education and training, the Prime Minister should have started by saying, "As I said more than a decade ago, in 1996." The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) emphasised the importance of education, especially in a global market, but in the past 10 years we have seen a rise of 1 million in the number of young people who are not in education, training or work. On fixed rate interest mortgages for 20 or 25 years, the Prime Minister should have started by saying, "As I said four years ago, in 2003."
	The Bills on those issues, and others in the programme, are nothing more than repetition from the past, with a huge dose of spin added to them. This programme is the result of failure, not success, in the past decade. Let us consider some of the specific issues.

Alex Salmond: I have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but does he agree that what is really at stake is the process? The issue is whether hon. Members believe that they can influence the Government in this debate. If they thought that, this would be, for obvious reasons, a hugely important parliamentary occasion. It is one thing to say that the Government's record is abysmal, but what is it about the process in which we are engaged that has not convinced the hon. Gentleman?

Shailesh Vara: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point to which I shall refer later. He makes a good point when he says that if Members genuinely believed that they had the opportunity to influence the Government, they might have turned up in greater numbers than they have done tonight.

Simon Hughes: As encouragement for the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) I wanted to point out that we started without any prospect of a separate debate. We had to battle for that and we got it. Clearly, it has not been at an ideal time of day, because other business got in the way and the Government did not organise it very well. The Government have a lot of learning to do and our view is that a good start has been made in theory, but that the practice leaves a lot for delivery.

Shailesh Vara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, and repeat that I shall return to the efficacy of the process a little later. For the record, I should clarify that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said that she welcomed the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) would do well to make sure that he uses the correct wording in future.
	I turn now to some of the specific issues. The Government should take no pride in the fact that they are proposing to introduce the 65th criminal justice Bill since 1997. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, it is quality not quantity that matters. As for extending the 28-day detention period for terror suspects, the Government should accept that any change should be based not on rhetoric and soundbites but on proper and compelling evidence. So far, that is clearly lacking.
	The draft programme also contains a new health Bill. People all over the country are suffering from hospital closures and cuts in departments—especially accident and emergency and maternity units—so it beggars belief that the Government are still tinkering with our health structure after a decade in power. That is a mark of failure, not success. While I am on matters medical, I commend my hon. Friend the Member Buckingham (John Bercow) on his typically passionate and learned speech. Among other matters, he spoke about the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, and I have no doubt that he will make a significant contribution to its discussion in this House.
	The draft programme is significant in that it highlights what is not included in the list of Bills. In his statement to Parliament on 11 July, the Prime Minister said that
	"in the interests of good and open government and public debate"
	the summer statement
	"can be the subject of widespread and informed public debate."—[ Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1449.]
	That is fine sounding, but if the Prime Minister and his Government genuinely care about what people think, why have they not included a Bill to have a referendum on the European treaty that is currently on the table, even though 86 per cent. of the British public want one? Incidentally, the Government's closed mind on the matter is further endorsed by the fact that there is still no English version of the treaty. There is a French version, of course, but not an English one. It is bad enough to ignore the views of 86 per cent. of the British public, but it is much worse for the Government seek to stifle debate by not having an English version of the treaty.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, the draft legislative programme makes no mention of the proposed reclassification of cannabis, or of the U-turn on super-casinos. Those matters were left to be dealt with by planted questions. It has nothing on prisons, or on the West Lothian question mentioned by the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
	We are told by the Prime Minister and the Government that they will listen to the views of the public and others on various subjects, but our experience so far suggests the contrary. The Government have announced a plan to build 3 million new homes by 2020, but they have ignored the advice that they have already received from their own consultants. They have warned that building so many homes in some areas could increase the danger of flash flooding if land needed for drainage is concreted over.
	Given the circumstances, the response from the Minister for Housing showed an extraordinary attitude. In a recent Sunday newspaper article, she wrote:
	"To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it's about building more homes, stupid."
	I suggest that she be less judgmental of her critics and pay a little more attention to the advice of experts in the field.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith spoke of first-time buyers and about helping people to get on to the housing ladder. He will be aware that after a decade of Labour government home ownership is actually falling for the first time since figures were published. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke of the need for more social housing and highlighted the fact that there is a 13-year wait for a four-bedroom house. I have to tell her that under 10 years of Labour government less social housing was built every year than in every year of the predecessor Government.
	Much has been made of the Government's desire to consult on the draft legislative programme and to listen to the public, but if a member of the public visits the Cabinet Office website she or he will find that they are restricted to using only 1,000 characters in their response. After taking account of commas, full stops and spaces, that leaves about 150 words. There we have it: the Government want to hear from the public, but only if the response is confined to 150 words. Given that many politicians have a problem articulating points succinctly, it is indeed ironic that the public should be subjected to such a limit.
	This draft programme represents a decade of failure, a decade of spin and a decade of style over substance. The proposed Bills are nothing new; they are old, rehashed and recycled, and the so-called public consultation is nothing more than a cosmetic exercise—it is sham, pure and simple. The Opposition are not falling for that publicity stunt and neither are the public.

Theresa May: People might think that greater importance was attached to the debate if the Leader of the House were actually present for the wind-ups.

Alex Salmond: rose—

Helen Goodman: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Alex Salmond: I know that I serve in two Chambers, and these days I am a model of consensual government and patience—that patience is being rewarded—but I can only be in government in one Chamber at a time. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) wants to transport himself to the Scottish Parliament, I am sure that I will be able to answer all his questions even better than the Deputy Leader of the House is managing to answer them.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman made it plain earlier that that was his view. He also spoke about the importance of a single equalities Bill. Again, that is a matter on which Labour made a manifesto commitment, and we will produce a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny over the coming year, so that we have a thorough and well-grounded piece of legislation to introduce at a later stage, as time allows. It is particularly pleasant to listen to the hon. Member for Buckingham, who always gives such positive endorsement of the Labour Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke in her usual sensitive but energetic way about the needs of her constituents. She spoke about the problems of housing and homelessness and suggested a number of practical solutions. I know that since she was elected she has been concerned about the structure of housing benefit. We will ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions reads her speech so that it can consider the matter further. My hon. Friend also spoke about counter-terrorism and the importance of making progress on that. I hope she will be satisfied with the way the Prime Minister set out in his statement this afternoon the way in which future consultation will work.
	The right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a somewhat predictable speech dealing with constitutional reform, the West Lothian question, and the state of the devolved Administrations. At no point in his speech did he acknowledge that the devolved Administrations were the creation of a Labour Government. He raised the matter of a joint ministerial committee. The Government are well aware of his calls for the joint ministerial committee to meet, and will consider the proposal.

Alex Salmond: The Scottish Parliament was established by the Scottish people in a referendum. As for the joint ministerial committee, that was a Labour Government proposal. It was a Labour Govt measure, but has fallen into disuse since 2002. What could be the argument for that mechanism not to be working, instead of falling into disuse? Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House could think about the argument and give me a little more comfort that, having read my speech in advance, she has considered the point closely enough to be able to give me an answer.

Helen Goodman: My right hon. and learned Friend was enthusiastic that all this should be brought to the attention of all Members of the House; that is why she adopted that supererogatory approach.
	Six months ago, Conservative Members were saying that we could not renew in Government, but we have shown that we can. For us, renewal is not simply an exercise in PR and spin. We are reforming the way that we do politics. As a first step in our wider constitutional reform programme, we are introducing a new process that strengthens parliamentary accountability and public openness. We are able to renew and reform because we understand the challenges of the modern world; that is why we have the groundbreaking and far-sighted Climate Change Bill, and why we are going to have a new scientific and ethical framework through the human tissue and embryos Bill. We are able to renew and reform because our policies are rooted in the values of social justice; that is why we are addressing child maintenance and the needs of children in care. We are able to renew and reform because our policies are rooted in our communities. We understand people's aspirations; that is why we are proposing flagship Bills on education and skills, housing and regeneration. I commend the publication and its contents to the House.

Thomas McAvoy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 26th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.— [ Mr. McAvoy]

David Howarth: This is a petition from professional nursery staff, parents of nursery age children and others. It states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of professional nursery staff, parents and others
	Declares that nurseries, pre-schools and day-care providers fulfil a vital role in the development of young children; that, in this country, private, voluntary and independent nurseries provide the overwhelming majority of nursery care and education and that the Government's new Code of Practice (concerning Nursery Education Funding) fundamentally changes the rules regarding the provision of free nursery places for three and four-year olds.
	Further declares that the petitioners are concerned that this new Code of Practice will: cause significant financial harm and insecurity in the nursery sector; force exiting trusted nurseries out of business; create uncertainty for families and staff; and lead to a shortage of high-quality nursery education.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to halt the implementation of this Code of Practice and undertake an urgent assessment of its impact on nurseries.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Bob Neill: I might have cut things a little fine for my question this morning, but I have had ample leisure to repent while waiting for the debate this evening. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important issue for many Londoners.
	It is appropriate to raise population statistics compilation in London with the Exchequer Secretary, who earlier today dealt with the motion about the chair of the Statistics Board. There is a link. In the earlier debate, several hon. Members referred to the general population's lack of confidence in official statistics. I believe that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made the point that one of the biggest causes of lack of confidence in official statistics is that they are sometimes demonstrably plain wrong. That is exactly the problem with the methodology that produces the official population statistics for London.
	London Councils, which has been most anxious to hold such a debate, compiled compelling evidence that the methodology that the Office for National Statistics used to calculate the population of London is seriously flawed. Consequently, the official population statistic significantly understates the capital's population. London Councils has repeatedly raised the matter with the ONS and the previous Treasury team of Ministers without success, hence its desire for a debate, and I am happy to do my best to oblige.
	Lack of confidence in the London population statistics is not new. Westminster city council eventually successfully challenged the population estimates for its city and borough in the 2001 census, which had to be revised upwards after manifest errors were discovered. It was able to point out precisely what had gone wrong. Regrettably, the position has not improved. For reasons that I shall describe, the current methodology of the ONS is flawed and it now proposes to move to a different methodology, which is equally flawed, as can be demonstrated.
	It may seem an arcane point, but official population statistics are important. They form part of the basis of important forward planning, such as where more homes, schools and health care facilities should go, long-term policy decisions about, for example, where new transport infrastructure should go, and operational decisions about police numbers for each borough and fire service cover. The risk assessment includes population levels and it is therefore important that the statistics are accurate. They are also important because they are part of the formula to allocate Government grant to councils for local services. If they do not reflect where the people who use the services are, resources will not be directed correctly. That leads ultimately to waste. The concern of London Councils, therefore, is that the funding cake for local government should be divided up on the basis of accurate figures, whatever its size. If it is not, the risk is that London might lose out unfairly. I should like to address that issue in a little more detail.
	In summary, when London Councils compared the theoretically based estimations of population with detailed work that had been done on the ground in a number of London boroughs, it was able to demonstrate serious underestimation, in particular of the amount of in-migration to the capital. For example, the evidence shows an underestimation of 3,300 people in Enfield and of 2,000 people in Brent, as compared with the number of people who are demonstrably there on the ground in those boroughs. In Newham, it was possible to demonstrate that there were 750 more schoolchildren than were "officially estimated"—the key point is that, unlike the estimates, the schoolchildren are actually there. Similar demonstrations of inaccuracy have been made in Croydon. The problem is not just a London problem. Outside London, Slough has demonstrated an under-calculation of 6,000 people in its population.

Bob Neill: They certainly are. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not good enough for the Government to say, for example, that migrants frequently move on quickly. That is not demonstrated by the evidence on the ground and nor does it deal with the point that, for a period, migrants live in London, which is often the first port of call. While they are there, they are using London services, and that has to be met in one way or another.
	It is fair to say that those shortfalls are recognised by other responsible bodies, not just by the London boroughs. I remind the Exchequer Secretary of a piece in  The Guardian in April, in which the Home Office Minister responsible for immigration said that
	"at the very least the Office for National Statistics needs to improve its figures on which key local financing decisions are based, but it also means the tough enforcement of immigration laws, including the prosecution of employers of illegal migrants."
	That is an acceptance by one of the Exchequer Secretary's colleagues in Government that the ONS needs to improve its act. Referring to the current method of calculating in-migration, which is based on the international passenger survey—a small sample survey of people arriving—the Governor of the Bank of England said last November:
	"A survey that was designed to learn more about tourism and business travel is not the best source of data from which to learn about migration."
	That is a pretty unanswerable point. Lord Bruce-Lockhart, the chairman of the Local Government Association has said:
	"It is essential that the government gets the figures right on migration. That is currently not happening and local authorities are suffering as a consequence. Councils are finding it difficult to provide services to growing populations that are not recognised by government statistics."
	The Mayor of London and the London assembly have both complained about the inadequacy of the figures going back to the 2001 census. The Mayor has commented on the fact that the Lisson Grove estate, which contributed substantially to his majority when he was a Member of this House, seemed to have disappeared from the census calculations. It is not often that I agree with the Mayor of London, and I could not agree with him on that one.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not a matter of party political tension? It is a shared view across the parties and among independent people across Greater London. Is he also aware that there is a turnover of those registered in constituencies such as mine of between 25 and 40 per cent. a year? The reality is that, unless we have a five-yearly census or, even better, an annual opportunity to count, we will never begin to catch up and accurately measure the numbers in a way that can be reflected in an accurate apportionment of grant by central Government to local government.

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is consensus on this between all three parties in the Association of London Government, and this view was endorsed by its leaders' committee in its most up-to-date report only a few weeks ago.
	I have set out why this matter is important for the levels of funding for personal services, adult services and children's services, the capitation formula for primary care trust funding and the dedicated schools grant. All those issues and more depend on getting this right. The criticisms have been well set out and, with respect, it is not good enough for the Government to retreat into the position that they and the ONS have so far adopted, saying that they have used the best available statistics. In this case, the best available statistics are demonstrably wrong.
	The final piece of evidence that I should like to pray in aid is a survey by the City of Westminster which shows that some 40,000 new national insurance numbers were issued to residents of Westminster between 2002 and 2004. That represents a 17 per cent. increase on the 2001 base population. It might shock hon. Members to learn that that survey also shows that about 20,000 people arrive at Victoria coach station every week, predominantly from eastern Europe. For at least some of the time after they arrive in the UK, they will be in London.
	The movement from the international passenger survey with the labour force survey will not, regrettably, make things better. It is suggested that the labour force survey got nearer to the estimate than the IPS in 2001, but if we go back to 1991, it was the other way round. So there is no guarantee that it is better. In fact, the labour force survey sample is even smaller than the sample used for the IPS. That is crucial, especially as we are to move to three-year local government finance settlements, starting in 2008. It is therefore all the more important that we get this right to start with, because the problem will be much more difficult to unpick if we are locked into a three-year settlement on the basis of inaccurate and unreliable figures.
	The fault here is that the two methods fail to pick up short-term migrants, to whom I have already referred, or people who live in London for part of the week but are counted as resident elsewhere. Many people live in London for part of the week for their work, not a few of whom are connected to this honourable House, but their family home is regarded as elsewhere, so that is where they live for the purposes of the official population statistics. However, while they are here they use London refuse services, leisure services, street cleansing services, and so on. That is not recognised.
	The figures do not take into account either the very real and well documented effect of population churn in large cities such as London. In the City of Westminster and some other central London boroughs, population churn of about a third—up to 34 per cent.—is well documented. That in turn creates particular costs, because it involves one set of short-term migrants being replaced by another. They are not picked up by the official statistics, but they are nevertheless using local services. The ONS has said that it will publish estimates of short-term migration later in the year, but that will be too late for the start of the three-year financial settlement in April 2008. Much more urgent action is needed, which is why I have raised the issue in the debate tonight.
	I have set out in some detail what is wrong. London Councils does not want the Government to wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and say that it is all down to the quango—the ONS. The Government have responsibility. What we need to do is accept that current estimates are not working and are not fit for purpose, and accept that there is a lack of clarity and transparency. It is reasonable to ensure that we develop a methodology that is robust, up to date and fit for purpose. There must be proper consultation with local authorities before it is changed—that has not happened so far—and minimum standards of accuracy should be set out on a basis that can be agreed between the Treasury, the ONS and local authorities. Perhaps the incoming chair of the Statistics Board could, with a little push from Ministers, take that into account.
	If only the Government and the ONS would listen to councils in London, accept what is happening and come up with a solution to restore both fairness and public confidence. That is the reason for this debate at this late hour—late in terms of the time and of opportunity. We must get things right before the funding settlement cuts in. We contend that the Government cannot abdicate their responsibility on this issue. Ultimately, ONS has to be accountable. So far, regrettably, it has put its head in the sand in the face of compelling evidence. What is needed is for the House and the Government to put pressure on it to accept reality and change things in available ways while there is still time to do so.

Angela Eagle: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this evening's debate. I thank him for raising the important issue of the compilation of statistics on London's population. The hon. Gentleman explained that this is such an important issue because ONS population statistics are used to determine local government funding. Equally, they are used to inform local planning in respect of services for the future.
	It is precisely because of the importance of these statistics that ONS takes a great deal of care in making them as accurate as possible. ONS is currently involved in ongoing work to improve statistics. I will come on shortly to describe how those statistics are put together, and explain why some of the suggestions about flaws in the methodology are inaccurate.
	I would like to start, though, by talking briefly about how these statistics are used, because the impression is sometimes created that local government funding depends entirely upon population statistics. I will not describe in detail the funding formula used by local government—we are all familiar with it, especially with how it impacts on our own areas—not least because it is the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government rather than the Treasury. However, I will say that it takes account of other factors, such as the ability of local authorities' ability to raise revenue from council tax, alongside the population statistics, which are clearly important in themselves.
	There is also a process known as damping, which is used to ensure that all local authorities receive a minimum increase in grant, known as the floor. That floor means that even if population statistics were to show the population decreasing in an area, the local authority's funding would still increase by a reasonable amount.
	Nevertheless, population statistics are clearly important, and they should be as accurate as possible. As well as being used for local government funding, they are used
	to develop and monitor economic and fiscal policy and to understand social change, as well as any policy implications that stem from it. These statistics are calculated as accurately as possible, using a clear and carefully designed methodology.
	One of the challenges for that methodology—it is only part of the task—is to factor in the impact of international migration on population levels. The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter in the House this evening. Migration is largely calculated on the basis of the international passenger survey. We have heard a number of things about the lack of accuracy in the IPS, but I should like to draw attention to areas where it is reasonably robust.
	First, it has been claimed that IPS is restricted to the major airports and that it does not include Victoria coach station, for example, where 20,000 people can arrive. Actually, it sampled 16 airports, 11 seaports and the channel tunnel. Clearly, it does not sample Victoria coach station, but that is simply because coaches from other countries cannot get there without passing through a port or the channel tunnel. The IPS picks up the inhabitants of the coach on its way through to Victoria coach station.
	Secondly, it is not the case that the international passenger survey's sampling is carried out only during the working day, as critics have said. There is flexibility in when the sampling can take place, especially to include particular flights from particular countries that may arrive early at an airport.

Bob Neill: Will the Minister accept, however, that she is missing an important point? It is important to have accuracy of statistics not just on who is coming into the country through the entry points, but in terms of calculating, for example, local need and grants when people are here. The IPS does nothing to assist in that for the reasons set out.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is why the labour force survey offers extra insight, although I would be the first to say that it is not an actual count of all migrants wherever they are. Even if we could do that and afford to do it regularly, it would still provide only a snapshot of the situation, which, as he said, can be fluid.
	The IPS is more comprehensive than is often suggested, but the ONS is committed to ensuring that population statistics are as accurate as possible. It has been working this year on improving its methodology. Plans to do that were published in April. The ONS has held meetings with a number of users, including some London local authorities, to discuss planned changes. Those meetings have led to refinements to the proposals, which were outlined in material published yesterday. There have been workshops and feedback has been given. I expect the dialogue to continue as changes to the methodology to produce more accurate figures are put into effect.
	The improvements that the ONS is making to its methodology make the information more accurate and improve quality. In particular, migration estimates will now draw on the labour force survey in addition to the IPS, which will help to reflect what migrants do after they have entered the country and where they settle. There is some evidence that the IPS may be particularly inaccurate for well-known places such as Westminster, Oxford or Manchester because people often fill in a place that they have heard of when asked about their destination, and that is not always where they end up living.
	Again, concerns have been raised about aspects of the labour force survey, including the suggestion that it does not take account of people in multi-occupied dwellings. Although it does not take account of people in communal establishments, such as halls of residence, it does cover all types of private households, including those that are in multi-occupied dwellings. While response rates to the survey for multi-occupied dwellings are lower than those for single household dwellings, the weighting of the sample to take account of age, gender and region goes some way to correcting that. There have been improvements and a process of ongoing dialogue with local authorities, including London local authorities. I expect there to be an ongoing liaison.
	The improvements in the methodology improve in particular the regional and local distribution of international migrants in the statistics that the ONS produces. Combined sources of such statistics have strengths that increase the robustness and the likely accuracy of the results, rather than taking the results from a single survey. The improved methodology will now be applied to revise population statistics for 2002 to 2005 and to produce 2006 mid-year population estimates, all of which will be released in August.
	The improvements will not change the trends demonstrated by the existing methodology's estimates. In particular, figures based on the improved methodology will not show either population or migration levels decreasing. Across England and Wales, the original method showed an increase in population due to long-term international migration. The improved methodology increases that slightly by 28,000. For London, the existing method implied an increase of 396,000 between 2002 and 2005 as a result of long-term international migration. The revised method reduces that increase to 336,000, but that is not the same as saying that migration is decreasing, and it is certainly not saying that the population is decreasing. Instead, the revised figures show that migration to London remains on an upward trend, but at a lower level than the estimates suggested.
	I should re-emphasise that the changes are being made to improve the methodology and accuracy. As well as making the statistics more accurate this year, the ONS has planned further improvements for subsequent years. In particular, an inter-departmental taskforce on international migration statistics was set up in 2006 and has made a number of strategic recommendations for further improvements in the years to 2012. The ONS is already taking forward some of those recommendations, and will publish a full response later in the summer.
	The ONS also published a revisions policy earlier this month, setting out the principles for further revisions to population statistics, and it has been working with local authorities and Government Departments to identify how new and existing information sources—such as GP and school registrations—can be used to inform migration estimates and address local issues in population estimation. That goes to the heart of what Members have been talking about.
	However, that is not as easy as it might seem. The statistics published yesterday on national insurance numbers issued to overseas nationals caught the media's attention and have been mentioned in our debate, but basing population estimates on national insurance numbers could be misleading, as some people apply for them but do not use them, while others need them only for a short period. In other words, national insurance numbers provide an inflow figure, which is not necessarily a net figure, and many of those who applied for national insurance numbers might have already left the country. National insurance numbers do not show the flow out; they only show the flow in.
	That brings me on to my final point, on those who come to the UK only for a short period. The ONS population statistics that I have talked about rely upon the UN definition of a long-term migrant—someone changing their country of usual residence for at least a year. We believe that that is the most appropriate and reasonable definition to use and the most realistic way of accurately determining the population levels in different areas. We recognise that short-term migration is also important, as is churn, but such trends are difficult to pick up on accurately and in a timely fashion without spending one's whole life getting snapshots of an ever-changing situation. That is why I am particularly interested in discovering how we can use other indicators and statistics to get a closer handle on a more disaggregated level on what is happening.
	We believe that the annual definition is the most appropriate one to use, but the ONS has been working hard on producing innovative estimates, and will publish national figures later in the year. However, this is a new and difficult area and we cannot expect accuracy immediately as we feel our way towards a solution.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS
	 — 
	IMMIGRATION